Do your Part as a Canadian Gun Owner!​​
The Canadian government opens its public consultation on banning handguns and semi-auto rifles.
Prime Minister Trudeau has asked the Honourable Bill Blair, Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction, to lead an examination of a ban on handguns and "assault weapons" in Canada, while not impeding the lawful use of firearms by Canadians.
CONTACT YOUR MP and say NO to BILL C71 an NO to a ban on handguns! 
Come in and sign our Petition to go straight to Parliment:       
Unlike the e-petitions that require 500 signatures to be recognized, a traditional paper petition only needs 25 signatures to be presented in Parliament.
More importantly, the e-petitions do not inform Liberal MPs how many of their constituents have signed on. With a paper petition, I can ensure Liberal MPs know just how many of their constituents oppose wasting money on a fake gun ban study.


Buy your Hunting License and Tags online if you can wait for your tags to be mailed to you (see this link: ) 
or at your local B.C. Services Access Center (for immediate Species tags). 

For more details consult your current online B.C. Hunting Regulations at



Privacy breach in Canadian handgun consultations
Minister Bill Blair admits Canadian government recorded IP addresses of Canadians filling out online survey  [Raymond Ayas] by Raymond Ayas
November 30, 2018 in Breaking News, Canadian News, Politics, TPM Exclusive
[Privacy breach in Canadian handgun consultations]
Minister Bill Blair admits to privacy breach in committee

According to member of Parliament Pierre Paul-Hus, Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction Bill Blair has admitted to a privacy breach in an online survey. Paul-Hus states the government recorded the IP addresses of everyone surveyed during the 2018 handgun ban consultations.
When questioned as to how he knew the survey was submitted 130,000 times by Canadians, Blair answered:

I have been advised by the officials that were overseeing its implementation that there… there was… ways to determine the areas in which people were participating.
While the consultation process from Public Safety Canada is still ongoing, the online engagement session was only open between October 11 to November 10, 2018.
It was marketed to Canadians as being administered in accordance with The Privacy Act. The privacy breach occurred during that 30-day period.
Last October, a spokesperson from Blair’s office claimed the questionnaire was,
designed to be an open, anonymous and barrier-free tool that will provide meaningful feedback to the Government of Canada, including from Canadians living and working abroad.

The tool was not so anonymous however. To “determine the areas in which people are participating”, the government had to track the IP addresses of everyone surveyed.
An IP address is a unique string of numbers separated by periods. It identifies each computer using the Internet Protocol, required to communicate over a network.
Each computer accessing the internet does so through someone’s account, held with an internet service provider.

The servers on which the questionnaire was residing belong to the government.
It follows that information tying each submission to a computer – and ultimately to a person – was not only tracked by the government, but also stored.
Privacy breach causes shock and outrage Member of Parliament Pierre Paul-Hus believes this is a violation of privacy. He expressed himself on Twitter today:

Tracey Wilson, V.P. of Public Relations at the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights, wonders if the government had the permission to acquire this information. She responded to our request for comments today.

It is painfully clear this government has no issues with extracting our data any way they can. Just look at the Stats Can/Banking info fiasco. My problem is there is no accountability either. I completed their survey and no where did it inform me my data and associated IP address was being collected. This is something I have asked legal to look at and I will be encouraging the official opposition to raise the alarm bells.
Wilson doesn’t think the data collection was an accident, and she’s disappointed.
I was really hoping for an honest dialogue, for once, in this country – about crime and violence and how we can work on solving it. Yet this appears to be just another Liberal game, a waste of time and resources, and worse – a violation of privacy of citizens across the globe.
A problematic questionnaire
It’s not the first time Bill Blair’s questionnaire is criticized.
Brian Lilley has already described a number of serious flaws in Ottawa’s handgun ban consultations.
For example, anyone in the world could fill out the online survey. Furthermore, there was no limit on how many times a person could submit responses.
That’s open season for zealots with an agenda – or automated software – to answer multiple times.

The technology to isolate IP addresses of respondents by country exists. There are also mechanisms to block repeated access, so it is a mystery why the government hasn’t implemented any fail-safe procedures in their consultation.

Reducing violent crime: A dialogue on handguns and assault weapons -

Reducing violent crime: A dialogue on handguns and assault weapons
Keeping communities safe and reducing violent crime is a priority for the Government of Canada. This is why, in his Mandate letter, the Prime Minister has asked the Honourable Bill Blair, Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction, to lead an examination of a ban on handguns and assault weapons in Canada, while not impeding the lawful use of firearms by Canadians. The Government of Canada would like to hear your views. This will provide an excellent opportunity to identify gaps, challenges, and ideas to help inform future measures aimed at reducing violent crimes in Canada.
This engagement process is open to all Canadians to share their views on how to reduce violent crime related to handguns and assault weapons.
In addition to encouraging written submissions, Minister Blair, with the support of Parliamentary Secretary Peter Schiefke, will be holding a limited number of in-person roundtable sessions and discussions with a range of experts and stakeholders. They will also be soliciting feedback from provinces, territories, municipalities, as well as Indigenous communities. It will be an opportunity to examine all options and hear all perspectives on this issue.
How to participate
Read the Discussion Paper: Reducing violent crime: A dialogue on handguns and assault weapons
Complete the online consultation
Send-us an e-mail or a written submission
Mailing Address:
Attention: Dialogue on Reducing Violent Crime
269 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0P8
Fax: 613-991-7095
The information collected during the engagement process will assist Minister Blair in fulfilling his commitment to lead an examination of a ban on handguns and assault weapons in Canada while not impeding on the lawful use of firearms by Canadians.
Reporting to Canadians: A summary report of the engagement activities will be made public in early 2019.

Summary of events
Date Activity Participate
October 11 to November 10, 2018 Online engagement available to all Canadians on Reducing violent crime: A dialogue on handguns and assault weapons:

October 22 to end of November 2018 In-person stakeholder engagement sessions will be taking place across the country By invitation only
For additional information about Reducing violent crime: A dialogue on handguns and assault weapons, please contact [email protected]
Related information
Online engagement on “Reducing violent crime: A dialogue on handguns and assault weapons”.


New Book Shows How Canada’s Draft
Gun Law Aims at Wrong Target

Toronto, May 29, 2018 (Canadian Shooting Sports Association) — Two leaders of Canada’s firearm community joined forces to help journalists, policymakers and responsible gun owners understand how Bill C-71, the government’s first proposed firearm legislation in a generation, aims at the wrong target.

The Bill C-71 Book: What It Means, How It Hurts You, and 3 Easy Steps You Can Take Right Now to Block It is the most comprehensive and easy-to-read overview of the draft law.
The free PDF/e-Book is a joint project of The Canadian Shooting Sports Association (CSSA), Canada’s leading gun-rights advocacy group, and, the country’s leading source of news on gun politics and the firearm industry.

The authors are critical of the planned law and urge gun owners to oppose it by contacting members of parliament.

The Minister of Public Safety’s bill is directed at federally licensed hunters, farmers and sport shooters who have taken and passed RCMP-approved safety courses and background checks, and are monitored daily by the RCMP. This legislation would impose new restrictions on more than 2 million of Canada’s most scrutinized, most vetted and most responsible men and women.

“We are the staunchest advocates of responsible firearm use and public safety,” said Christopher di Armani and Nicolas Johnson, the authors. “Our concern is that Bill C-71 does not advance public safety. Bill C-71 is all about adding more restrictions on the safest and most law-abiding people in the country.”

CSSA Executive Director Tony Bernardo said: “The government is selling greater restrictions on federally licensed firearm owners as the solution to gang crime. It’s not.”
The book is available as a free PDF download from

Canadian Shooting Sports Association
Tony Bernardo (Toronto)
Christopher di Armani (Vancouver)
[email protected]
Nicolas Johnson (Toronto)
[email protected]

Stop The New Long-Gun Registry!
SIGN E-PETITION 1608 (FIREARMS) (see link below)
Bill C-71, An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms, does nothing to tackle firearms violence, but rather adds further red-tape on law abiding firearms owners;
This legislation brings back the useless and ineffective long-gun registry; and
This legislation does not provide the resources to frontline police forces to tackle the true source of firearms violence : gangs and organized criminal enterprises.
We, the undersigned, Residents of Canada, call upon the House of Commons to scrap Bill C-71, An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms, and to instead devote greater resources to policing in Canada.

SIGN THE PETITION (copy/paste this link into your browser)

Sponsored by Rachael Harder, M.P.
Lethbridge, AB
March 28, 2018

Conservatives push for study on rural crime in wake of gun reform bill, Boushie shooting
Bob Zimmer: With tweet, Trudeau misleads Canadians on firearm rules
Here is an idea to keep guns away from criminals
Remington Files for Bankruptcy
MP Larry Miller Opposes New Firearms Bill
Battlefords RCMP to participate in gun amnesty program

NEWS ALERT ON BILL C-71: The Liberal government has passed Second Reading on the bill and it has been referred to Committee. Be HEARD –– Act NOW!

CBC Gun Control Expert says Bill C-71
is a Gun Registry

After Justin Trudeau and Ralph Goodale went to extreme lengths to assure gun owners that Bill C-71, The Firearm Owners Harassment Act, is not –– repeat not –– a gun registry, it seems not everyone got the memo.
Francis Langlois, the CBC’s self-described “gun control expert,” shot down the government’s claim about Bill C-71.

“While the registry might help police and government keep track of a firearm's first owner, it can't do much else," said Francis Langlois, a history professor at CEGEP Trois-Rivières, who studies firearm issues in the United States.

Langlois said the proposed registry is inefficient because officers would still have to go to court to obtain a warrant for the information.
"If the police [are] in a hurry, they won't be able to work rapidly, he said. The registry would also only show new purchases, Langlois said, not firearms that people already own.”

Finally, the CSSA and CBC can agree – Bill C-71, The Firearm Owners Harassment Act, creates a gun registry. Their own gun control expert confirms it.

Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson welcomed “proposed legislation that aims to tackle a growing problem with gun violence.” Except Bill C-71 does no such thing. Not a single line of the legislation focuses on violent criminals or their misuse of firearms. The legislation adds layer upon layer of restrictions to licenced, law-abiding firearm owners, then creates new firearm classification categories (Section 12(9) to 12(14)) to implement future gun bans.

Liberal logic on gun control goes like this:
1.         Leave violent criminals alone.
2.         Harass licenced, law-abiding firearm owners.
3.         Pretend we're doing something useful.

It makes perfect sense –– if you lack the capacity for rational thought.
It makes perfect sense –– if you lack the ability to focus on the source of the problem: violent criminals, drug dealers and gangs.

It makes perfect sense –– if your goal is to be seen doing something instead of actually solving the problem of gangs, drug dealers and the violence they leave in their wake.
It makes perfect sense –– if you do not care how many tax dollars you waste with your attack on Canada’s safest members of society to claim you “did something” while do nothing to solve the gang violence in our cities. Not a single measure in Bill C-71, The Firearm Owners Harassment Act, deals with violent criminals.

Here are seven questions the Liberal government refuses to answer:
1.        Businesses are forced to keep a record associating an individual person to an individual firearm. How is this not a gun registry?
2.        Which section of Bill C-71, The Firearm Owners Harassment Act, grants legislative authority to the RCMP to prohibit or restrict firearms?
3.        Where is the evidence proving the current 5-year background check fails its public safety objective?
4.        What are the criteria for the Licence Verification to be approved or denied?
5.        Please provide a list of all cases where public safety was harmed by the current Authorization to Transport conditions of: to/from a Gunsmith, to/from a gun store for Appraisal or Sale, to/from a Gun Show or to/from a Border Point.
6.        Why, after the RCMP’s long history of incorrect firearm classifications, has the power of our elected officials to correct mistakes made by the unelected and unaccountable RCMP been removed?
7.        Was a cost/benefit analysis completed on the implementation of Bill C-71, The Firearm Owners Harassment Act? If so, what did this analysis conclude?

Question of the Week:
Do you believe the Liberal government is creating a backdoor gun registry with Bill C-71?
Not sure
Results from last week's question:
Who do you think the Liberal government is targeting in Bill C-71?
Violent criminals: 1.5%
Law-abiding gun owners: 97.3%
Other: 1.2%


Commentary : Public Safety Minister Supports Transparency for RCMP Firearm Classifications
Politics makes strange bedfellows and good news often comes from the strangest of places. On May 8, 2018, it was the Minister of Public Safety’s comments on Bill C-71, The Firearms Owners Harassment Act.
While CSSA disagrees with the Minister and the government over the goodness of Bill C-71, we wholeheartedly support his public statement about transparency for all firearm classification decisions made by the RCMP.

The comment came during his presentation before the House of Commons committee reviewing the draft legislation.

Question by Sean Fraser (Liberal): “If the RCMP is going to be in charge of classification decisions, is there anything preventing them from releasing reasons, in the interests of transparency, as to why a particular firearm is classified a particular way?”

Ralph Goodale – Minister of Public Safety: “Not to my knowledge, Mr. Fraser. If that helps with transparency, if that helps in reassuring the public as to why a particular decision was taken, I would be more than happy to pursue with the experts within the RCMP so that people have a full understanding about why a classification was made in a certain direction.”
Everyone benefits from this openness and transparency, not just firearm owners. It is refreshing to see a Liberal MP and government minister agree with us on this issue, as CSSA has called for the transparency of RCMP classification decisions for over two decades.
We applaud the Minister for his support for RCMP classification transparency.
We ask all our members to contact Minister Goodale, thank him for his public statement and urge him to follow through.
Call his constituency office in Regina at +1 (306) 585-2202
Write him at:
Hon. Ralph Goodale, P.C., M.P,
Minister of Public Safety
House of Commons
Ottawa, Canada K1A 0A6
Email: [email protected]
Watch the excerpt here:
Watch the full Committee meeting on Bill C-71 here:


Call your MP ASAP and say NO to Bill C-71!

For more detailed analysis on this proposed legislation go to the Facebook Page for CCFR!

CSSA Talking Points
Bill C-71, The Firearm Owners Harassment Act
What you can do
Communication is the key to defeating Bill C-71. Firearm owners must voice their displeasure to the House of Commons and the media as soon as possible, and keep the pressure on our elected officials.
CSSA members have asked us for talking points to use in their communications with federal members of Parliament. We are delivering with 35 separate talking points listed below.

Here are three excellent methods to express your opinion to our elected representatives:

1. Repeated emails. Send until you get a response.
2. Snail mail letters. Postage is not required when writing to your federal M.P.
3. Telephone calls. Phone repeatedly. Ensure the M.P. actually answers your question.
Communicate with your elected representatives as often as you desire. The more often they hear from law-abiding firearm owners, the better. Always include your own M.P. in your communication, regardless of political affiliation. Find your M.P. here:

It’s easy to use these talking points in your communications with Parliament, the media and friends.
Pick one or two points and base your letter or phone call upon them.

Simple is always best. Express one point well, then repeat in your next letter. Ten individual emails, each addressing a specific problem with this legislation, is better than one letter addressing ten points at once.

While this legislation is riddled with problems, clarity is essential. Keep to one or two points, at most, then write another letter.
In all your communications, please refer to this legislation as:

Bill C-71, The Firearms Owners Harassment Act.
Send the email, snail mail or phone message to:
The Hon. Ralph Goodale, P.C., M.P.
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
Telephone: 613-947-1153
Fax: 613-996-9790
[email protected]
CC: Right Hon. Justin Trudeau, T.J. Harvey M.P., Gudie Hutchings M.P., Hon. Larry Bagnell, Hon. Wayne Easter. Bob ZimmerM.P.

Background Checks
Who evaluates the information resulting from a background check?
What qualifications do they have to evaluate this information?
Whose opinion(s) will form the basis for an investigation and by what legislative authority?
What is the criteria the evaluations are based on?
Why is there no appeal process?
What is the start-up cost and annual operating cost for this system?
How did the existing background check system fail? In other words, what is the evidence proving the existing 5-year background check fails its public safety goal?

Licence Verification
Businesses are forced to keep a record associating an individual person to an individual firearm. How is this not a gun registry?
Are all Licence Verifications entered into a database to track individual firearm owner activity?
Who keeps this Licence Verification activity data, for what purpose, and how long will it be retained?
Is Licence Verification data attached to an individual's licence? If so, who can access it?
What is the criteria for the Licenve Verification to be approved or denied?
What is the start-up cost and annual operating cost for the License Verification system?

Authorizations to Transport
Why was “Transport to/from a Gunsmith eliminated?” Was there any public safety issue and, if so, what was it?
Why was “Transport to/from a gun store for Appraisal or Sale” eliminated? Was there any public safety issue and, if so, what was it?
Why was “Transport to/from a Gun Show eliminated?” Was there any public safety issue and, if so, what was it?
Why was “Transport to/from a Border Point eliminated?” Was there any public safety issue and, if so, what was it?
What is the government’s estimate of the annual cost to perform these mundane functions individually?
Will the four previous ATTs be issued on paper? If not, how will an individual prove they have an ATT for the purpose stated?
Was there a cost/benefit analysis completed? If so, what conclusion did it make?

Section 12(9)
Can any type of firearm be added to Section 12(9)?
Who will make the decision to add firearms to Section 12(9) and under what legislative authority?
What criteria are used to include a firearm in Section 12(9)?
What new legislative authority grants the RCMP the power to prohibit or restrict firearms?
Will there be a communique sent to all firearms owners every time a firearm is classified as Prohibited under 12(9)? Or will the RCMP continue to secretly add firearms to the Firearms Reference Table (FRT) without informing the owners of this classification change?
Why are firearm owners not informed of firearm classification changes under the current system?
Why are licensed firearms owners not permitted access to the FRT to determine if legally-acquired firearms were re-classified as Prohibited Firearms, inadvertently turning them into criminals?
Is there an appeal process to 12(9) and if not, why not?

Swiss Arms Classic series and CZ-858s will be made 12(9) Prohibited.
Previously, the RCMP classified CZ-858s as Section 12(3) Prohibited. Does their inclusion in Section 12(9) mean the RCMP made another mistake in classification?
Will an information bulletin be issued to police describing the difference between prohibited CZ-858s and other very similar firearms?
Is there an appeal process to 12(9) and if not, why not?

The powers of the Governing Council to declare a firearm to be Non-Restricted has been revoked.
Why, after the RCMP’s repeated history of incorrect firearm classification, has the power of our elected officials to correct mistakes made by the un-elected and un-accountable RCMP been removed?
Does the government plan another method to correct RCMP mistakes? If so, what is that method?
What is the rationale for elected Members of Parliament to abdicate the powers delegated to it by the electorate to make laws?
What must the current or future government do to rectify an incorrect firearm classification

Be part of the solution - Join the CSSA TODAY!

Liberals release new Firearms Bill C-71

Bill C-71 has been introduced and the CSSA was there. Here is a quick run down of the provisions of this bill. 


Reality Check: What do the changes to Canadian gun laws mean for you?
Another Liberal Betrayal of Canadians

Bill C-71 has been introduced and the CSSA was there. We have had a chance to run through many of the provisions of this bill and the bill contains more pitfalls than initial examination makes apparent.
Firstly, this is not a good bill for Canada's firearms owners. In fact, it stinks. Many of the provisions turn the future of firearms ownership from uphill to downhill. This bill is insidious, enabling traps and entanglements for future users.
The following are some of our observations. They are by no means complete. Items will also be added as the tangles unravel.

* Background checks for criminal violence and any mental illness will be conducted over the life of the individual, not the previous five year period.

Most firearms owners are supportive of some form of mental health screening but the potential for abuse in this section may outweigh any benefits. Firstly, provisions that go back through the persons lifetime might be difficult for some of our honoured veterans, police officers and other emergency responders. The very nature of the work these heroes do entails exposure to terrible things that sometimes leave their mark. A firefighter suffering through the emotional trauma of a deceased family, a gruesome vehicle accident attended by police of the horrors of a soldier's combat experience may lead to times when one of these people may need the attentions of a health care professional. Others can experience bad things too and need help to deal with them. 
And then, the system springs into action to deny these people the opportunity to recreate with a firearms, to perhaps eliminate the cathartic healing of a day on a grouse hunt or spent in the deer woods. Worse, there is simply no evidence that this extended check has any positive benefit If it does, we await the evidence.

* Both business and private sales of all firearms are subject to computerized license verification. Non-Restricted firearms transfers will not have the information regarding the firearm recorded.

Is this a gun registry? No. It is a registry of active gun owners though. Of course, this presumes that all the verification and confirmations codes are recorded (and tracked?) Amazing quantities of data can be presumed through the recording of such data and of course, our trust in the system to perform the function benevolently is exactly ZERO. Since the massive debacle of the Chretien government the confidence of Canada's firearms community in the Liberal party and the RCMP drones is minimal at best.

* Business are required to perform licence verification and keep records which will include the individual's information and all information regarding the firearm(s) transferred. The business must keep the records for twenty years unless the business ceases to be a business. In that case all records must be surrendered to the authorities.

For the business end of this, this is a gun registry, pure and simple. It isn't a very good one but, anytime you force people to fill out a document that attaches a individual firearm to an individual person, that is a gun registry – and it includes long guns. Dealers must keep the records of the transaction for twenty years and if the business should go out of business, all records must be surrendered to the authorities. The Liberals state the information belongs to the dealer but the truth seems to be that the dealer is merely entrusted with its care-taking.

* Authorizations to Transport have been gutted. The only permitted uses are to shooting ranges and Purchase-to-Home, but will still include "all ranges in province". All currently held ATTs will be revoked upon passage of Bill 71.
Why? Why? Why? When bill C-42 became law, ATTs became valid for six common functions. Four of these have been eliminated despite the absence of any problems. Let's look at these six.

1. Still allowed: Transportation to any section 29 range in your province of residence, 24/7. This the longest ranging one of the six. It means an individual can drive from Cornwall to Kenora - 22 hours non-stop - to shoot a match and drive home, staying in hotels, eating in restaurants, stopping for bio-breaks.

2. Still allowed: Bringing a firearms from the place of purchase (or post office) to your home. Truth is, this solves a way bigger problem for them than it solves for us. The authorities take a dim view of you unboxing a pistol at the post office so you can confirm the serial number matches your ATT before driving it home.

3. FORBIDDEN: Transportation to/from a gunsmith. This is despite the fact that the gunsmith must sign it in and out of their business inventory. This is not small. Un-maintained guns can be dangerous but it seems the government only cares about the safety of some Canadians.

4. FORBIDDEN: Transportation to/from a gun store for the purposes of appraisal or sale..Same deal, entry into the business inventory is undertaken by the business when in for sale or consignment

5. FORBIDDEN: Transportation to/from a border point. You better have your American documents and your Canadian documents or you are in for the worst two days of your life.

6. FORBIDDEN: Transportation to/from a gun show. Many gun show vendors attend a different show almost every weekend. It's bad enough when the CFO offices are so dysfunctional that they can't issue an ATT over a provincial border but, you can to any shooting range in your province but not a gun show around the corner to display your firearms.  There is simply no excuse for these foolish restrictions except the pure contempt of the Liberal government and the firearms control bureaucracy towards Canada's firearms owners.

* All of the Swiss Arms Classic series and CZ-858s will be made 12(9) Prohibited. The owners of these rifles will be Grandfathered. Grandfathered individuals will be able to acquire other 12(9) firearms. Grandfathered owners will be permitted to transport these firearms to a range for the purposes of target shooting (with the CFOs permission.)
Can you say Gun Bans? Well in fact, it is much worse than this. It sets the stage for many future gun bans. The creation of Section 12(9) is the creation of the federal firearms incinerator. You see 12(9) is different, unlike most of the other gun ban systems. In fact, it is most like Section 12(6.) Are you confused by all the Section 12 jargon. Let us make it simple. Section 12(2) – Full Autos. Section 12(3) – Full autos converted to Semi-autos. 12(4) Firearms contained in Prohibited Weapons Order 12. Section 12(5) – Firearms contained in Prohibited Weapons Order 13. 12(6) – Handguns with barrels of 105 mm or less, .25 and .32 calibre. 12(7) – 12(6) handguns manufactured before 1946 and registered as family heirlooms. 12(8) – The regulations governing these prohibited firearms. 12(9) – CZ-858s and Swiss Arms Classic series rifles... FOR NOW!

What 12(9) really is about, is a wide open gun ban window. Any firearm, rifle, pistol, shotgun, BB gun, can be tossed into the black hole of 12(9) at the Order-in-Council whim of the feds, whenever they choose. The ban is semi-deferred and owners will still get to shoot their guns, for now, and at the discretion of the Chief Firearms Office. It is slow boiling of the frog and the perfect vehicle to effect massive firearms bans, of any gun they choose, at any point in time that suits their agenda.

* The powers of the Governing Council to declare any firearm to be Non-Restricted has been revoked.

And if you thought the last point was bad, check this one out. The Trudeau government wants to make the RCMP the ultimate arbiter of all things good and just. They are removing the only brake the RCMP has on their ultimate authority to ban the lawfully owned property of Canadians. The ability of the ELECTED government of Canada to reverse the stupid decisions that have routinely emanated from the incompetence of the RCMP firearms lab.

Let's look at the two affected guns, the CZ-858 and the Swiss Arms Classics. The RCMP gave these very firearms a non-restricted rating. A decade later, after thousands had been sold, the RCMP says, “Whoopsie, we were wrong – they're prohibs – turn them in.” Minister Steven Blaney says, “You can't do that to people” and puts the power in place to reverse a stupid, politically motivated decision. Now, in a move destined to be one of the stupidest decisions this Liberal government has made yet (and that says a mouthful) the power to correct the mistakes of the RCMP has been repealed.

Un-elected – All-powerful – Un-accountable.
That's Canada's new RCMP Firearms Program
There's still more to come in this bill. The UN Firearms Marking System is still to come in the form of a Technical Amendment. We are not hopeful for a successful outcome. Let's be blunt, after Bill C-71 the Liberals have shown that their spots have not changed. They continue to hate us and along with their dishonest partners, the majority of Canada's mainstream media, will continue their unprovoked attacks against 2.1 million lawful, trustworthy, licensed Canadians.

After all this, this legislation ONLY affects lawful gun owners! Surprised?
Be part of the solution - Join the CSSA today.

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
[email protected]
 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.