The scandal that will not (Should not) die – Thanks Dennis !
By Dennis R. Young – January 23, 2018
On November 7, 2016, an Access to Information (ATIP) request to the RCMP:
Reference is being made to the discussions held with Justice Department ATIP Analysts regarding the processing of my ATIP request to the Justice Department (Justice File: A-2016-01141/NR -
During these discussions and e-mail exchange, I was informed that a number of records of meetings regarding the RCMP’s actions in High River during the 2013 flood were held in the Justice Department but that those records would all be exempted under section 23 Solicitor-Client Privilege.
For the period from June 21, 2013 to present, please provide copies of all records,
communications, requests, e-mails, correspondence, reports, presentations, briefing notes, etc showing the nature of the legal matters and/or legal questions related to the RCMP’s actions in High River during the and following the High River flood that required legal advice and review by officials in the Department of Justice and Attorney General’s office.
On November 18, 2016, I received an acknowledgment letter from the RCMP advising me they had opened a file and started their search for the records requested. RCMP File: A-2016-09452
On March 18, 2017, I filed a Delay Complaint with the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada.
On March 29, 2017, I received an acknowledgment letter from the Information Commissioner.
On June 2, 2017, the Information Commissioner appointed an Investigator to look into the reasons the RCMP was not able to provide the records I requested in the time frame required by the Access to Information Act.
On January 23, 2018, I received the following update from the Investigator for the Office of the Information Commissioner:
“I’m contacting you to provide you with an update on the status of your file. Our senior management met with the RCMP ATIP management to develop a strategy to deal with the over 200 active delay complaints against the RCMP. They decided to triage the complaints and the files with the fewest number of responsive records are being processed first as well as any deemed to be priorities by either the RCMP or the OIC. In regards to your request, it consists of 2,840 pages. Our office has proposed to meet with the RCMP to develop a spreadsheet so that we will have more info to work with and can hopefully give you a proposed response date


The pattern is predictable. A bad person takes a gun and shoots people, killing and wounding many. Before the dead are cold, the standard-bearers for civilian disarmament trot out their new legislation that will, they guarantee us, “help stop this terrible tragedy from ever happening again.”

Here’s the problem. They said that after the last tragedy and subsequent round of restrictions on firearm owners. And the tragedy before that. And the tragedy before that.
The most recent bandwagons for the civilian disarmament crowd is the terrible tragedies in a Texas church (26 dead) and in Las Vegas (58 dead.) The horror is unimaginable. No rational person can even begin to comprehend the mind of someone wanting to kill and maim so many innocent people.

These shootings rub very uncomfortable facts in our society's collective face.
The Las Vegas killer had no criminal history. Not for violence, not for anything. Police had no idea this man would do such a terrible thing.

The Las Vegas killer obeyed every legal requirement, including repeated background checks, when
he obtained the guns he used to such despicable effect.
The Texas killer, a man with a long history of violence, should have been prohibited from owning firearms but the system failed – again.

The Texas killer's murderous rampage was stopped by a legal civilian firearm owner, an NRA instructor with a personally-owned AR-15.  Watch his interview here:

Is the lightbulb glowing yet?

No law on planet Earth can stop these sorts of killers. Not one.
The anti-gun crowd hates hearing that. It flies in the face of their core belief – that if we just pass enough laws, we can stop these tragedies from occurring.

That brings up the one fact their core belief cannot handle, and therefore must reject: Laws only affect those willing to obey them. Criminals, by their very nature, are not affected by them.

The Criminal Code of Canada is a very thick document. All those laws don’t prevent individuals with bad intent from breaking them – a fact our overflowing prisons sadly confirm.

Don’t get us wrong, please. What happened in Texas and Las Vegas is terrible. It's utterly beyond the comprehension of any calm, rational human being.
Yet it happened.

There is one simple explanation for why we cannot understand people who commit such horrors, and that is because we would never do that. Not the staunchest anti-gun advocate. Not the most ardent gun owner. Not one of us would do that, ever.
As a result, we cannot comprehend, let alone understand, how someone else could. So those seeking simplistic solutions attempt to pass more laws to harass the people who are of no danger to anyone. And, of course, more restrictions on guns that “look bad.”
Our legislatures occupy themselves with their busywork because, even though these new laws are just as useless as the last round, at least they’re seen to be doing something. And doing something always feels better than doing nothing.

However, before the next round of legislative insanity (doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results) is passed into law, let’s ask three pertinent questions.
What is the goal of the legislation? Do the measures contained within this legislation achieve that goal?  Is there real evidence to back up those measures? If not, why not?
Is there a better alternative?

We understand the desire of anti-gun advocates to stop these killings. That’s a goal we all share, and for the same reason. The senseless killing of innocent people horrifies us beyond measure.

Nobody hates these tragedies more than lawful gun owners. We are the scapegoats for the anger, the rage, the frustration and powerlessness everyone feels in the wake of these tragedies.

However, banning guns is not the answer. It’s a convenient band-aid on a much deeper societal problem. Anyone who believes in these Pollyanna solutions might as well reach for the pixie dust and unicorn poop too. Simply put, it’s like banning cars because someone drove drunk and killed someone.

You can’t stop alcohol-fuelled dangers by banning cars and similarly, you cannot stop mass murders by banning guns... or box cutters, or fertilizer, or diesel fuel, or chlorine, or jet planes, or flammable liquids. The tool is never the problem.
The human being controlling the tool is the problem.

Until we deal with the underlying issues that cause people to go on these terrible murder sprees, we will never stop them, no matter how many anti-gun laws we pass.

Canadian Access to Firearms

The Trudeau government’s echo chamber on gun control insists disarming civilians will stop violent crime. That’s the problem with echo chambers – those inside the chamber hear only those opinions they already agree with – they can’t hear anything else.
That deafness only intensifies when governments appoint fellow echo chamber members to “advise” them, as with the federal Department of Public Safety’s Firearms Advisory Committee.
Ralph Goodale, in appointing members to his “new and improved” Firearms Advisory Committee, ensured the committee would tell him what Trudeau’s government wanted to hear. And what the Trudeau Liberals want to hear is their 2015 election platform of lies echoed back to them.
Only 10 of 15 seats on the committee are filled. Yet Trudeau’s Liberals refuse to allow a representative from the CSSA or any other hunting and sport shooting organization to sit at the table.
Why talk to gun experts, the people directly affected by any legislative change? For starters, they will tell you what’s wrong with the law. They’ll provide evidence of what doesn’t work.
The Liberals don't want to hear that, of course. There are no votes in creating evidence-based policy, Justin Trudeau’s stated position notwithstanding.
Andrew Lawton, in an August 11, 2017, Global News commentary, asked “Where are the gun advocates on the federal government’s firearms advisory committee?”
Given that half the members of the committee are directly connected to the intellectually bankrupt Coalition for Gun Control, it’s a valid question.
Vice-chair Nathalie Provost, spokesperson for the anti-gun group PolySeSouvient, heads the list. Tim Naumetz, writing for on October 5, 2017, explained how PolySeSouvient is taking advantage of Provost’s position to curry favour with the Minister.
“Poly Remembers, or PolySeSouvient in French, sent a 21-page brief to Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale in June that contained nine recommendations for specific action and legislative change that would curb sales of handguns and semi-automatic assault-style rifles which have spiked by nearly 50 per cent over the past six years.”
The rabidly anti-gun Nathalie Provost is joined on the Firearms Advisory Committee by:
Suzanne Jackson, chair of the Board at the Canadian Public Health Association (a member of Coalition for Gun Control);
Paul Pageau, president of the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (a member of Coalition for Gun Control);
Paulette Senior, Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Women’s Foundation (and former head of the YWCA when it was a member of Coalition for Gun Control);
Clive Weighill, Past President of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (a member of Coalition for Gun Control)
Conservative MP Michelle Rempel sponsored a petition requiring every member of the Liberal’s Firearms Advisory Committee to obtain their Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL) so they could experience firsthand how Canada’s strict firearm control system works.
Of course, the petition fell on deaf ears and was treated with the same contempt firearms owners have come to expect from the Liberal Party of Canada. Ralph Goodale’s office defended the decision, telling Andrew Lawton requiring committee members to obtain their PALs “would be too triggering for committee vice-chair Nathalie Provost, a survivor of the massacre at Montreal’s Polytechnique school, to learn about the firearms she wants to ban.”
That absolutely nukes the credibility, not only of the Firearms Advisory Committee, but the entire Liberal firearms control program.
When committee members refuse to learn about the very issue on which they are tasked with advising government, well, that’s the very definition of an anti-gun echo chamber, isn’t it?
Lynda Kiejko, the other vice-chair of the committee, is a dedicated competition shooter with her sights set on an Olympic medal. She is one of just two people on the Firearms Advisory Committee with experience in firearms. In a 2016 interview with, she said:
“If someone has the intent to do something dangerous, having a rule in place isn’t really going to stop them. It’s hard for me to say what the solution is, but it is tough when we have laws that make it harder for us to enjoy the sport that we love, and to introduce new people to it.”
We hope her lone voice brings that same common sense to the table for committee meetings. It’s the only hope Canadian gun owners have against the Liberal government’s anti-gun echo chamber.

How can this possibly  promote an orderly society?
Subject: Australians are buying guns on the dark web

A UN-backed report has found Australians are using the "dark web" to buy and
sell guns, grenades and instructions on how to make bombs from sellers
overseas. In the largest study into online firearm sales, RAND Europe, a
non-profit research organisation, found more than 800 arms-related products
available online during a six-day period late last year.
By ANNIKA SMETHURST, National politics editor, The Sunday Telegraph -
October 14, 2017

Meanwhile in Bozoland.....

CANADA - July 11, 2017

Is it possible that in 2017 there are way more than 428 guns reported stolen
from police in 2011?
20, 2016
Reclassification and Registries: Why you should care

August 18, 2017
Mark Johnson, Contributor, Conservative Futures
Mark Johnson has spent the last decade as a senior advisor to Conservative politicians, including two consecutive federal Ministers of Public Safety.

My name is Mark and I'm a gun owner.

That's almost how you have to start any conversation on firearms and Canada’s ludicrous gun laws. There are a lot of Canadians, mostly urban, who assume that the only people who own guns are criminals and rednecks preparing for the apocalypse. Many people start with the assumption that there is no legitimate reason for an ordinary person to own any firearms.

Conversely, people in the firearms community often pretend that everyone is as comfortable with firearms as we are. It's often taken as an article of faith that people understand why we want to get rid of useless rules that don't make anyone safer. 

The reality is that many people don't understand. Many people don't have a lot of experience with guns, or know anyone who does. This is starting to change as hunting and sport shooting become more popular with Millennials. But we are still many years from shooting sports becoming mainstream.

So, for those who often wonder why conservatives are so concerned about firearms, here are the top three reasons why you should also care.

Parliament has only cast broad definitions of what should be prohibited, restricted or readily available to licensed gun owners. The rest of this power has been delegated to bureaucrats who either propose changes to regulations, or more often simply “reinterpret” what the law means.  In one case in 2015, it was determined that a certain small calibre rifle was non-restricted, but if a plastic shell was added to the outside to make it look like an AK-47 (while not changing any internal components),
it was prohibited. It's as if putting a Ferrari body kit on a lawn mower engine makes a lawn mower a sports car – and should be taxed accordingly. If this type of logic was applied to other categories of property, people would be up in arms, no pun intended.


This is the ugly step sister of classification. Not only are bureaucrats making decisions without any sort of oversight from those who are elected by and accountable to Canadians, but they are also able to arbitrarily change their mind. We've seen a couple examples of this in the last few years. First, we saw the move to prohibit the CZ-858 and Swiss Arms rifles. These rifles had been sold as non-restricted firearms in Canada for a decade or more.  Overnight, bureaucrats decided these rifles ought to be prohibited and that anyone owning these should be subject to serious prison time.  Fortunately, the previous Conservative government took action to create a mechanism to overturn this decision. (Full disclosure: I worked in the Office of Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney and worked very closely on this file.)

More recently, certain magazines (the part of the firearm that holds the ammunition cartridges) for the Ruger 10/22 rifle were deemed to be prohibited devices. Once again, these had been sold in Canada for many years. Once again, those who own them are potentially subject to serious prison time. No one would stand for the government saying that your car or your electronics are perfectly fine to own today, but tomorrow owning it might send you to prison.


This is probably one of the most easily understood problems with Canada's gun control system. In the 90s, the Liberal government spent over $2 billion to create a long-gun registry, ostensibly to track rifles and shotguns. It didn't do a whole lot and was an egregious waste of money. Many Canadians got on board with scrapping this boondoggle, which the previous Conservative government did in 2012. 

However, there is a bigger problem here. First, when the government either keeps or requires the keeping of this sort of registry, it is first and foremost an invasion of privacy. If the items are legal to own and use, why add the extra layer of bureaucracy? The fact is that law-abiding gun owners are already tracked via licensing. Second, and more fundamental in this case, it creates a possible shopping list for criminals. Hacks and data breaches of corporations and governments are all too
common. In fact, there was even an unauthorized disclosure of data from the former gun registry. This information in the hands of someone looking to steal guns to divert to the criminal market is very problematic. 

A lot of folks on the right, who aren't particularly aware of live issues around firearms, tend to think the fight is over because the long gun registry was destroyed, and some tweaks were made in the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act. This could not be further from the truth.

First, those concerned about private property rights in Canada should be very concerned about aspects of firearms law. There is a long way to go to build a system that both takes measures to keep Canadians safe from gun crime, but does not unnecessarily burden those who obey the law.

Second, the Liberals have a bad track record on respecting gun rights. Their platform has a lot of concerning language relating to banning firearms commonly used for sport shooting. What's more, they have introduced a bill to assist the Government of Quebec in building their provincial long gun registry.

Those of us who own guns, as well as those of us who value small government and property rights, need to make sure the pressure stays on the government – regardless of which party is in power

COMMENTARY: RCMP "Safe Cities" Project Targets Newfoundland Gun Owners
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary (RNC) will target the most law-abiding segment of Canadian society with their “Safe Cities” project, announced August 17, 2017.
Their joint press release starts off with an interesting statement:
“Letters have been sent to owners of unregistered firearms giving them the opportunity to comply with the current legislation.”

How would the police know who own unregistered firearms? What they meant, presumably, is the RCMP sent letters to all gun owners whose Possession and Acquisition License (PAL) expired.
This letter gives firearm owners “the opportunity to comply with the current legislation.”
The second prong of their “Safe Cities” initiative sends armed RCMP and/or RNC members to “the homes of firearms owners whose restricted and/or prohibited gun registrations have lapsed.”
Under the “Safe Cities” project, police will attend the home of every expired PAL license holder and, in addition to ensuring the individual complies with the licensing requirement for firearm ownership, attending police officers will “also pass along information on how to properly store and transport firearms and ammunition.”
When police “pass along information” on these subjects, they will probably inspect the homeowner’s current firearm and ammunition storage systems to ensure those storage systems “comply with the current legislation.”
Thanks to the Firearms Act of 1995, there is little you can do to prevent those searches either.
Both the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code of Canada specifically allow warrantless inspection of a gun owner’s home. A Firearms Officer that wishes to inspect your firearms will demand
you arrange a “mutually convenient time” within 48 hours. Your refusal to do so may be considered grounds for a search warrant under the Firearms Act, Section 104 (2).
104 (1) An inspector may not enter a dwelling-house under section 102 except
(a) on reasonable notice to the owner or occupant, except where a business is being carried on in the dwelling-house; and
(b) with the consent of the occupant or under a warrant.

     (2) A justice who on ex parte application is satisfied by information on oath
(a) that the conditions for entry described in section 102 exist in relation to a dwelling-house,
(b) that entry to the dwelling-house is necessary for any purpose relating to the enforcement of this Act or the regulations, and
(c) that entry to the dwelling-house has been refused or that there are reasonable grounds for believing that entry will be refused

may issue a warrant authorizing the inspector named in it to enter that dwelling-house subject to any conditions that may be specified in the warrant.
Combined with Section 117.02 (1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, Sections 102 and 104 of the Firearms Act ensure police may enter your home “on reasonable notice to the owner or occupant” to “inspect” your firearms, their storage and anything else “necessary for any purpose relating to the enforcement of this Act or the regulations.”
117.02 (1) Where a peace officer believes on reasonable grounds
(a) that a weapon, an imitation firearm, a prohibited device, any ammunition, any prohibited ammunition or an explosive substance was used in the commission of an offence, or
(b) that an offence is being committed, or has been committed, under any provision of this Act that involves, or the subject-matter of which is, a firearm, an imitation firearm, a cross-bow, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or an explosive substance,

and evidence of the offence is likely to be found on a person, in a vehicle or in any place or premises other than a dwelling-house, the peace officer may, where the conditions for obtaining a warrant exist but, by reason of exigent circumstances, it would not be practicable to obtain a warrant, search, without warrant, the person, vehicle, place or premises, and seize any thing by means of or in relation to which that peace officer believes on reasonable grounds the offence is being committed or has been committed.
An expired firearms license may give police all the legal justification
required to enter your home without a warrant under Section 117.02 (1)(b).
The “offence being committed, or has been committed” is unauthorized possession of a firearm as defined in Sections 91 and 92 of the Criminal Code.
Your only defence to the crime of unauthorized possession of a firearm is a valid Possession and Acquisition License, the very thing you do not have or the RCMP and RNC would not send you a letter and knock on your front door in the first place.
It makes no difference that you did not threaten anyone. It makes no difference that you did not hurt anyone, and it makes no difference that you're a nice person. It doesn’t even matter if your firearms never left your gun safe. Those firearms remain in your possession and that criminal offence allows police to enter and search your home.
While the press release makes no mention of seizing firearms from unlicensed firearm owners, that too is a very real possibility.
*URGENT: If your Possession and Acquisition License is expired, renew it immediately. Ensure you keep a record of the date and time you sent in your renewal form. If sending your renewal by mail, require a signature for receipt. Ensure you are in full compliance with the Storage, Display, Transportation and Handling of Firearms by Individuals Regulations.
*Take advantage of the protection assured by Firearms Legal Defence insurance. Your CSSA discount code is: CSSA002 and it is very inexpensive. For details, visit
*Know who your lawyer is and ensure they attend any inspection of your home.
(Full Safe Storage Regulations)
· (Safe Storage Basics)

Meet The Canadian Who's Now Being Prosecuted For Self-Defense
by Aaron Bandler | The Daily Wire | August 1, 2017

A Canadian man defended himself during a home invasion, and now he's being prosecuted for doing so.

Canada. Here's another similar example: (H/T: St. Catherines Standard)

The whole thing reminds me of Ian Thomson, an Ontario man who went through a similar ordeal a few years ago. In that case, Thomson woke up to four men throwing Molotov cocktails at his home. Living a long way from police the former firearms instructor fired warning shots at his assailants, put out the fire that could have burned down his home and then called police.

He was charged and also faced more jail time than his attackers.

Thomson was acquitted but not before he was forced through a lengthy court battle that has ruined him financially.

As the aforementioned column goes on to state, a law was passed under Prime Minister Stephen Harper to prevent jail time against those defending themselves, yet Michael Woodard faced charges for doing just that against three home invaders.

See the story: e=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=080117-news&utm_ca mpaign=benshapiro

Catch 22- If you can get your gun and ammo fast enough to make a difference, then you absolutely have broken the law! Typical totalitarian horse manure!
Matt Gurney: Ian Thomson acquitted after shooting at his attackers
After three men tried to burn down his home while he was inside it, Ian Thomson shot at them with a legally owned gun. He was charged with four crimes. He never should have been charged in the first place. But an acquittal on all counts will have to do.
Adrian Humphreys/National Post

It took two and a half years, but Port Colborne, Ont., resident Ian Thomson is finally done defending himself. First he fought the men who tried to murder him. Then, his own government.
Mr. Thomson had long been involved in an increasingly angry property dispute with his neighbour. Early one August morning in 2010, four masked men shouting death threats began hurling firebombs at Mr. Thomson’s home. One of his pet dogs was injured; several fires in and around his home were set.
Mr. Thomson, an experienced firearms instructor, called 911 immediately. He also armed himself with a .38 calibre revolver, stepped outside his home and fired three shots — one into his lawn, and two into a stand of trees. His attackers fled, and were later arrested. All four pleaded guilty to arson and disregard for human life, and were sentenced to between two and three years in prison.

So ended the first threat against Mr. Thomson. The next began immediately thereafter.

Mr. Thomson was charged with four crimes: careless use of a firearm, pointing a firearm and two charges of careless storage of a firearm, one for each of the pistols he had removed from his gun safe (the second, a 9mm pistol, was never fired during the incident). The first two charges were dropped — it’s hard to imagine a more cut-and-dry case of lawful self defence than firing on men trying to burn down your home while you’re inside it. But the Crown insisted on pursuing the charges of careless storage.

On Friday, an Ontario judge acquitted Mr. Thomson of both those charges.

The Crown had pursued two avenues of prosecution. First, it contended that Mr. Thomson kept at least one of his guns in his bedside table, not in a legally mandated secure locking container. As evidence, they pointed to the fact that when police arrived, they found the guns in his bedroom, as well as a box of ammunition in the bedside table.

Nonsense. The guns were out because he’d just been fighting for his life. And a box of ammunition in his bedside table is proof only that Mr. Thomson kept a box of ammunition in his bedside table. If we accepted the Crown’s logic, I would apparently be in the habit of parking my car in my bedroom because I drop my car key onto a shelf there every evening.

The judge found that video surveillance captured by Mr. Thomson’s security cameras offered convincing evidence that Mr. Thomson did not have easy and immediate access to his firearms. There was a gap of a minute between the attack beginning and Mr. Thomson opening fire — time during which Mr. Thomson claimed he was opening his gun safe to arm himself. The judge accepted this.

But the Crown had also tried a novel argument — they contended that Mr. Thomson was guilty of unsafe storage because his ammunition was not stored in a securely 
Canadian law notes that, “Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, uses, carries, handles, ships, transports or stores a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or any ammunition or prohibited ammunition in a careless manner or without reasonable precautions for the safety of other persons.” (Emphasis mine.) But there are no further references to what would constitute careless storage of ammunition — one reason Canadian gun owners have long complained that the Firearms Act is a poorly written mess.

The law specifies that firearms must not be readily accessible to ammunition, but also notes that firearms and ammunition can be stored in the same locked container. OK, then. And no definition of “readily accessible” is provided, either.

The judge ultimately ruled that the exact details of where or how the ammunition was stored did not matter. It only mattered that a loaded firearm not be readily accessible at any time, and since Mr. Thomson’s guns were stored in a locked container, that was the case. The judge rejected the Crown’s suggestion that Mr. 
Thomson’s bedroom was too close to his guns, noting the law says nothing about proximity of firearms and ammunition. Having rejected both of the Crown’s arguments, the judge acquitted Mr. Thomson.

There’s all kinds of good news here. First and foremost, Mr. Thomson did nothing wrong and should never have been charged in the first place. But an acquittal on all counts will have to do. Second, there is further clarification of Canada’s sloppy gun laws, and a reasonable one, at that.

And best of all, a message has been sent to overreaching Crown attorneys. Canadians have the right to use firearms to defend themselves and their homes. Mr. Thomson’s victory will hopefully spare the next Canadian who defends themselves with a lawfully owned firearm the expense and ordeal of a long legal battle against their own government.

National Post
 Mr. Thomson’s victory will hopefully spare the next Canadian who defends themselves with a lawfully owned firearm the expense and ordeal of a long legal battle against their own government.
Obviously not quite !

More Insanity: Canadian man charged with attempted murder after wrestling away gun, shooting suspect
Posted on August 3, 2017 by DCG | 43 Comments
Canada now criminalizes self-defense.

From Breitbart  (by AWR Hawkins): A man in Halifax, Nova Scotia, faces numerous charges—including attempted murder—after wrestling a gun away from a home invasion suspect and shooting him with it.

According to the Herald, “Three men entered the residence with guns and a struggle took place with two men inside.” The two men inside the home managed to take away one of the guns and “several shots were fired as the suspects fled.” One of the suspects was shot and suffered non-life threatening injuries.
Kyle Earl Munroe was arrested and “charged with attempted murder and a raft of firearms offences after helping fend off [the] home invaders, one of whom he’s now charged with shooting.”

The precise charges he faces are “attempted murder, intent to discharge a firearm, intent to discharge a firearm when being reckless, careless use of a firearm, improper storage of a firearm, pointing a firearm, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, unauthorized possession of a firearm, possession of a firearm knowing that possession is unauthorized, and possession for the purpose of trafficking.”

Public Prosecution Service spokeswoman Chris Hansen stresses, “Right now they’re just pending charges,” but the point is still clear. Namely, that sitting quietly while governments pass more and more gun control is a recipe for disaster, as far as freedom is concerned. Seemingly benign laws like gun storage requirements and trigger lock requirements and more aggressive controls like firearm registration rules and magazine bans all portend a situation where a law-aiding citizen in the U.S. uses a gun in self-defense only to face prosecution for failing to jump through the proper bureaucratic hoops beforehand.

Gun controls—regardless of how seemingly minuscule in the bigger picture—pile upon each other and empower criminals while tying the hands of would-be victims.