May 15, 2009
Incredibly, this is the fifth attempt they have made in just under three years. First was C-21, which was introduced in June of 2006. This legislation lapsed when Parliament dissolved in the summer of 2007. Next came C-24, which died when Parliament was prorogued in September 2008. Then came Gary Breitkreuz's private member's Bill C-301. This legislation was allowed to die when it became obvious the Liberals and NDP were going to use the sections that dealt with issues other than the long gun registry as an excuse to vote against it. Then came S-5, a Senate Bill, which is essentially identical to C-24. I have no idea why this Bill was introduced, since it has very little chance of passing the Liberal dominated Senate. (Bill S-5 is still before the Senate.) Finally we now have Candice Hoeppner's private member's Bill C-391.
It should be noted that C-21, C-24 and S-5 all contain a fatal flaw that should make them unacceptable to gun owners. Both these Bills require that the transfer of non restricted firearms be approved by the CFO (Chief Firearms Officer) The CFO would be required to determine if the transferee is authorized to own the type of firearm that is being transferred. Of course, to make this determination the CFO would need to know the make and model of the gun, type of action, barrel length, magazine capacity, and other assorted details. If the provincial government so desired, they could simply record this information, and start their own registry. Instead of one federal registry, we could end up with ten provincial registries. This would be an even bigger and more expensive mess than we have now.
For the sale of non-restricted firearms, Candice Hoeppner's Bill requires only that the seller verify the validity of the buyer's firearm licence with the Canadian Firearm Centre. The CFO does not get involved. Bill C-391 also drops all references to issues other than the long gun registry, which should remove any excuse rural Liberal or NDP MPs might have for voting against it.
March 5, 2009
This may well be the first and last time I am happy to see a Conservative defeated by a Liberal. A loss in this by-election was the only thing that was going to make John Tory retire, and we desperately needed him to retire. Moving forward with Tory at the helm would have ensured Liberal victories from now until the next ice age.
September 10, 2008
A Federal election has been called for October 14, 2008. This is the best opportunity we have had to drive a stake through the heart of the Liberal Party in quite some time. The Liberal leader has all the charisma of a piece of wood. He speaks English worse than Jean Chretien, which is something I would have bet was not possible. Finally, Dion's plan to tax carbon, at a time when energy prices are near record levels, is every bit as dumb as John Tory's idea to fund religious schools. (And we know what happened to him.)
There is a theory that many Liberals actually know they are going to lose the election, but feel there is no other way of getting rid of Dion. In essence, they have decided to sacrifice this election so they can get Bob Rae or Michael Ignatieff into the leader's chair. They will then make a serious run at Harper. I strongly suspect this is true, although of course, no Liberal will publicly admit this.
In any event, the choice for gun owners this election could not be clearer. The Greens, NDP, and Liberals are just about tripping over each other in a mad rush to ban as many guns as they can think of. The CHP is strongly pro-gun but has the proverbial snowball's chance in hell of even electing a single MP, let alone forming the government. If you are a gun owner, and would like to remain a gun owner, then there is clearly only one choice - Vote Conservative.
October 12, 2007
Well, as everyone knows by now, the Progressive Conservatives not only failed to win, they failed even to hold the McGuinty Liberals to a minority. In fact, the results of the election leave the composition of the provincial legislature virtually unchanged.
To be perfectly truthful, this was without a doubt the most poorly run campaign I have seen since Kim Campbell's disastrous performance in 1993. The decision to extend full funding to religous schools was just about the dumbest election platform any politician has ever come up with. John Tory refused to listen to polls, refused to listen to his candidates, and refused to listen to his advivors. He allowed Dalton McGuinty to turn the entire election into a referendum on religous school funding.
As a result, he not only got his butt kicked in the election, he lost his own seat. In my opinion, Tory is a three time loser. He lost the Toronto election to David Miller. Now he has lost the provincial election. Finally, he lost his own seat. Time to step aside John, and let someone competent take over the helm. This province cannot afford to keep putting Liberals back in power just because of one man's arrogant stubborn stupidity.
September 09, 2007
A provincial election is coming! Now is the chance for gun owners to throw out Premier Dalton "Fibber" McGuinty and Attorney General Michael "Ban Everything" Bryant. Read the Sporting clubs of Niagara Voters Guide.
May 20, 2006
The Honourable Stockwell Day, Minister of Public Safety, announced his government's plan to eliminate the long gun registry. This is a good start, but there is potential trouble brewing here for gun owners.
First, the Conservatives have announced their intention to maintain a licensing program for gun owners. If this takes the form of an FAC, it is something we could live with. If this takes the form of a POL or PAL, I will not support it. There are two major problems with mandatory licensing, one philosophical, one practical. From a practical standpoint, it means the power to deny firearms ownership has been transferred from judges to clerks. Under the old FAC system, a person could only be denied the right to own guns by a judge who issued a firearms prohibition order. This would only happen after a person was convicted of a crime involving violence. Under the new PAL system, a person can be denied the right to own guns by a clerk in the firearms centre who doesn't like the way a form has been filled out. The onus (and cost) of appealing this decision is on the gun owner.
From a philosophical standpoint, it means that firearms ownership has been converted from a right to a privilege. In any debate involving gun control, pro-gun forces must adopt the position that gun ownership is a right. If we accept that it is a privilege, then how can we possibly complain when the government restricts or removes the ability to own guns? If we insist that gun ownership is a right, but maintain that mandatory licensing is acceptable, then we have adopted two mutually exclusive positions. This inconsistency will blow up in our faces at some point during a debate with anti-gunners. The positions we adopt on gun control issues must be logically coherent. We cannot simultaneously accept mandatory licensing, then turn around and argue that gun ownership is a right.
Second, no mention has been made of the other objectionable aspects of the Firearms Act - searches without evidence of a crime, the removal of the right to remain silent, the abuse of safe storage charges by police, federal regulation of gun shows, the pointless prohibition of short barreled handguns, substantive changes being made through Orders in Council, poor computer security on gun registry information, etc.
Third, pro-gun groups are not speaking with one voice on these issues. The NFA built mandatory licensing into its "Practical Firearms Control System" years ago, and those involved are not going to change their minds now. We are sending the Conservatives mixed messages. This is a mistake that the anti-gun groups did not make. They were absolutely clear about what they wanted, and the Liberals gave them exactly what they asked for.
Fourth, the Conservatives may be tempted to make only minor changes to the Firearms Act in order to get support from Opposition Parties. Let's face it. The more substantive the changes to the Firearms Act are, the less chance there is that Liberals and NDPers will vote for them.
The Conservatives need to show they can reach compromises with other Parties. This will be one of the things many people will be looking for before they decide to trust the Tories with a majority in the next election. The Conservatives, because they are in a minority, are going to have to pick their fights carefully, and compromise on some issues. There is a danger they may be tempted to pick gun control as one of these compromise issues. It is up to us not to allow this to happen.
May 19, 2006
Of course, anyone who has been following gun registry politics for the past few years knows the Liberals have been hiding the true cost. We just lacked proof. Sheila Fraser has provided it.
In her 2002 report Ms. Fraser uncovered the massive cost overruns the program had accumulated. A system that former Justice Minister Allan Rock promised would cost the taxpayer only two million dollars, was heading towards a billion. Badly stung by this report, the Liberals solemnly promised to control future costs at the gun registry.
By late 2003 or early 2004 however, the Liberals realized the registry was going to be over budget by 21.8 million dollars. An election was expected soon, and Mr. Martin was flying all over the country begging forgiveness for Adscam. Justice Minister Martin Cauchon had publicly promised spending for 2003-2004 would be less than one hundred million dollars. It would be political suicide for them to admit that gun registry spending was still out of control. So someone decided to hide this cost by pushing it into the following year.
This sounds like some arcane matter involving accounting practices, but it is much more. Rules on how spending is to be counted are quite clear, and the Liberals actually broke the law (The Financial Administration Act) by hiding this spending.
Ms. Fraser also reported that no minutes were kept of any meetings where this deception was discussed. Thus, no one knows who attended these meetings, when they occurred, where they were held, what was said, or who made the final decision. The fact that they deliberately decided to hide these discussions proves the Liberals knew this deception was both illegal and unethical.
March 13, 2006
Report from former Sporting Clubs of Niagara President Gerry Gamble
The week of March 6th, 2006 saw representatives from four grassroots firearm organizations meet in Saskatoon. Our purpose was to present a unified position to the new Conservative government from groups whose only reason to exist is the repeal of our current Firearms Act and return to gun laws that focus on miscreants. The groups - the Responsible Firearms Owners of Alberta (RFOA), The Sporting Clubs of Niagara (TSCON), the Canadian Unregistered Firearms Owners Association (CUFOA) and the Responsible Firearms Owners Coalition of British Columbia (RFCOBC) already shared similar views and ideals. (CUFOA's tactics go much further than the others andadvocates civil disobedience and solutions via court actions.) The NFA and CSSA were also invited to attend the meeting but disappointingly both chose not to. This was truly unfortunate as a joint policy statement from six of the largest Canadian firearm organizations representing the majority of provinces and thousands of gun owners would certainly have caught the attention of the politicians concerned.
Canada's estimated 1.5 million gun-owners who have declined to participate in the government's licensing/registration scheme may wish to consider themselves represented by those organizations that did attend. Four days of work yielded what we believe to be a concise, unambiguous policy that provides sufficient protections to the public-at-large while allowing law-abiding Canadians to pursue their interests without undue interference. Our Joint Policy Statement, together with a request to meet with our current Minister of Public Safety, Stockwell Day (with copies to Justice Minister Vic Toews, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and MP Garry Breitkreuz) was transmitted on March 13th, 2006. Our requested meeting has not yet occurred but we remain optimistic that our efforts will yield improvements to the current, unacceptable laws.
To view our joint policy statement please go to our April newsletter.
Of course, Mr. Martin knows this will have no effect whatsoever on the criminal misuse of firearms. He is making this move for two reasons:
1. Liberal strategists think it will increase their support in Quebec and urban centres.
2. This has been their plan all along, and it seems like an opportune time to make their move now.
No one seems quite sure at this point what the Liberals mean by a "total" ban. They claim there will be exemptions for a certain number of target shooters. It is my opinion that they are using the non-grandfathered 12(6) owners as a test. This would explain why after six years of extension after extension to these owners, and a confused attempt to extend grandfathering to them, the Liberals suddenly changed their tune and started playing hardball.
I think that if it costs them $5,000 worth of court time to seize every fifty dollar piece of crap gun, then they will find an excuse to provide lots of exemptions to the "total" ban. If the non-grandfathered 12(6) owners all sheepishly comply with the order to turn in their guns, then the Liberals will probably only exempt a few Olympic class shooters. Of course, none of this will happen unless this lying band of self serving crooks gets elected again. I pray that this Country will finally wake from its slumber, and give them a well deserved kick in the ass with a steel toed boot. (Metaphorically speaking of course.)
In any event, this pretty much proves that the term "Liberal promise" is an oxymoron. I was at the first Fed Up rally in Ottawa when then Justice Minister Allan Rock addressed the crowd. With all the fake sincerity that slimy weasel could muster, he shouted "Registration does NOT mean confiscation!" Liar. Stinking, filthy liar.
Click Here for a video clip of a Liberal caught lying.
April 20, 2005
Bruce Montague addressed a crowd of 150 gun rights supporters at the Merritton Community Centre on April 19, 2005. Bruce's presentation was very polished. He made it clear that this is not just his fight, it is every gun owner's. If Bruce loses, we all lose. The Sporting Clubs of Niagara collected over $2,000 for Bruce's defense fund at the meeting. In addition, one of our directors personally contributed $300. We then collected an additional $150 at the April 29 gun show. Although this is an impressive sum of money for a small organization, it is chicken feed compared to the estimated $300,000 Bruce will need for a Supreme Court challenge. Bruce still needs your financial help. Visit www.BruceMontague.ca to see how you can contribute. Just as important as money, Bruce needs your prayers. He will be appearing before a biased, corrupt, and politically motivated Supreme Court. His chances of getting a fair hearing before this coven of communists is just about zero.
April 2, 2005
After years of trying to get someone arrested for possession of an unregistered firearm CUFOA has finally succeeded. (CUFOA is Canadian Unregistered Firearms Owners Association. This organization believes that much of the Firearms Act is vulnerable to court challenges.) Bruce Montague is a hunter and gunsmith from Northern Ontario. On September 11, 2004 Bruce was arrested and jailed for eleven days. Bruce's only 'crime' is to refuse to submit to our dictatorial Liberal government. Now Bruce needs your help.
Bruce will be speaking at the Merritton Community Centre on Tuesday April 19, 2005 at 7:00 PM, and he needs as many people as possible to attend. It is likely this event will get press coverage, and we need a good turnout to show that opposition to the long gun registry is not dying out (as the Liberals hope it will). Please try to attend this event.
October 19, 2004. Proving once again that they will not be content until private gun ownership in Canada is illegal, the Liberals have launched yet another attack on firearms owners. This latest attempt to strip us of our rights comes in the form of new regulations governing substances Ottawa has deemed to be explosive. This includes smokeless and (maybe) black powder.
The proposed changes are:
The effect of these proposed changes would essentially be to make handloading illegal in any urban area. How many people do you know who have a house in the city that is almost 50 feet from their nearest neighbour?
It is not clear at this time whether the proposed changes will affect people who store black powder or not. Most of the proposals deal specifically with handloading, but in a letter to the National Firearms Association, the government stated that "The accidental ignition of 5 kilograms (kg) of black or smokeless powder can cause a fireball several metres across." So it may be that they are looking at restricting black powder storage as well.
The government claims the new regulations are only proposals, and that there will be a consultation process with stakeholders. I am very skeptical. This is exactly what Allan Rock told us nine years ago. Mr. Rock listened politely while gun owners explained to him why his proposed restrictions wouldn't work. He then completely ignored everything we had said, and went and introduced legislation exactly as he had originally intended. The entire consultation process was a complete sham, intended for propaganda purposes only.
Still, it may be possible to turn back this attack, because the Liberals are in a minority government, a position they have not had to face since the early seventies. If we can generate enough letters, we may convince them they cannot afford to antagonize us any further. Send letters to:
Hon. John Efford
Minister of Natural Resources
House of Commons