OIC Action Items

[IronNoggin]

Alberta Parks and Environment minister Jason Nixon

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly

(a) recognize that the criminal use of firearms primarily involves unlicensed individuals, often using illegally smuggled firearms;

(b) express its opposition to the Government of Canada’s recent decision to amend regulations to the Criminal Code to prohibit the possession, transportation and sale of certain types of legally-acquired firearms by licensed, law-abiding citizens; and

(c) urge the Government of Alberta to take all necessary steps to assert provincial jurisdiction in connection with these matters, including replacing the Chief Firearms Officer having jurisdiction for Alberta as designated by the federal Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness with a chief firearms officer for Alberta designated by the Government of Alberta in accordance with the Firearms Act (Canada).

[IronNoggin]

Effect of firearms legislation on suicide and homicide in Canada

No beneficial association was found between legislation and female or male homicide rates. There was no association found with firearm prevalence rates per province and provincial suicide rates, but an increased association with suicide rates was found with rates of low income, increased unemployment, and the percentage of aboriginals in the population. In conclusion, firearms legislation had no associated beneficial effect on overall suicide and homicide rates. Prevalence of firearms ownership was not associated with suicide rates. Multifaceted strategies to reduce mortality associated with firearms may be required such as steps to reduce youth gang membership and violence, community-based suicide prevention programs, and outreach to groups for which access to care may be a particular issue, such as Aboriginals.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar...l.pone.0234457

[W921]

Just curious, say somebody wanted to commit suicide but they did not want to use a gun because they figured it would just give urban liberals another reason to Hassel gun owners. How would they do it?
Criteria for doctor assisted is pretty high. If you overdose on prescription pills you will probably throw up half way through and end up with more problems. Last year I accidentally almost gassed myself with a propane heater in a building and that sure was not pleasant.
I have known a lot of people who have suffered some long hard deaths and put their families through a lot. They had said when they were younger that if things were to go real bad that they would off themselves but they never did. Well one did when his wife left him but he never talked about suicide.

[IronNoggin]

Major Announcement - National Education Campaign

The CCFR is launching the largest public awareness campaign on behalf of gun owners in Canadian history. This new high water mark is in the form of a massive national advertising campaign. This program is designed to raise awareness of the CCFR's property rights lawsuit and how it affects the lives of every Canadian. Through this, the CCFR aims to present the unfair treatment of gun owners and create an opportunity for non-gun owning Canadians to see the other side of this debate. This campaign launched yesterday Monday, June 22nd and is made up of the following actions:

A 750-word full page article and infographic on the injustice of the gun ban via OIC and its relationship to property rights in Canada. This article will be published, in this format, in 17 broadsheet and tabloid format newspapers across Canada. These include the National Post, Financial Post, Vancouver Sun, Vancouver Province, Edmonton Journal, Calgary Herald, Saskatoon Star Phoenix, Regina Leader Post, Windsor Star, Ottawa Citizen, Montreal Gazette, Kingston Whig-Standard, London Free Press and Sun newspapers in Edmonton, Ottawa, Calgary, Winnipeg and Toronto.

In addition, a full page open letter will be published in the 17 above-mentions publications three separate times over a 6-week period.

A sponsored interview/article supported by online banner advertising delivered via over 6 million impressions. This includes social media advertising and advertising on the websites of all the previously-mentioned newspaper websites as well.

360,000 instances of audio ad commercials on all major online music services.

All these sources drive traffic to our new domain www.propertyjustice.ca which in turn redirects to an all new page on firearmrights.ca. Visitors are greeted with a new explainer video detailing why all Canadians should care about this historic court case and why they should consider supporting it. They will also be directed to our online quiz so they can determine if they currently know anything about Canada's firearm laws.

Licensed, law abiding, Canadian gun owners will not be ignored. Our opinions matter and we are part of the Canadian cultural fabric.

None of these projects happen without the support of individual gun owners becoming members or donating to the CCFR. Please support the CCFR in this and other ground-breaking projects because doing nothing is not an option.

https://mailchi.mp/7a9f9cf563a1/here...t-week-4004740

https://firearmrights.ca/en/legal-challenge/

[Mr Conservation]

Originally Posted by W921

Just curious, say somebody wanted to commit suicide but they did not want to use a gun because they figured it would just give urban liberals another reason to Hassel gun owners. How would they do it?
Criteria for doctor assisted is pretty high. If you overdose on prescription pills you will probably throw up half way through and end up with more problems. Last year I accidentally almost gassed myself with a propane heater in a building and that sure was not pleasant.
I have known a lot of people who have suffered some long hard deaths and put their families through a lot. They had said when they were younger that if things were to go real bad that they would off themselves but they never did. Well one did when his wife left him but he never talked about suicide.

As a First Responder, I have been to a number of "suicide" calls, where the person was successful. Suicides were carried out several ways including hanging, overdose, carbon monoxide in an enclosed garage, and drowning. One victim wrapped heavy chains around their legs, and jumped off a pier

In the majority of cases, the victim never once indicated their intentions to anyone else. They just went and "did it". No doubt there would have been warning signs, but no one ever picked up on them.

Most often if someone is stating they are suicidal, they are seeking attention. Dealt with one caller on numerous occasions who would call 9-1-1 and just say "I'm suicidal" then hang up the phone. This would necessitate a response from the police, the ambulance service, and first responders. The caller would be transported to the hospital, be cleared by the attending doctor, and left to go home to repeat the scenario - sometimes several times a day which resulted tying up emergency services that could have been used on other calls.

It is sad that someone wants to end their life - even sadder for the families and loved ones when they do. Unfortunately there are not enough mental health services available to deal with the problems people face today.

Mods - you may want to move this to a separate thread so as not to derail the original thread.

Mr Conservation

[bat119]

CITY OF COLD LAKE NEWS RELEASE:
City council voices opposition to federal gun ban Cold Lake City Council has voted to voice its opposition to the federal government’s decision to ban a number of firearms, and the planned buy-back program associated with the ban.
The decision was made after a notice of motion was tabled by Councillor Kirk Soroka at city council’s June 9, 2020 Regular Meeting. A resolution put forward in the notice of motion was debated and passed at council’s regular meeting this week.

read more here

https://www.facebook.com/PrimeTimeLocalNews/

[IronNoggin]

The not unexpected response from the Human Rights Commission:

Dear XXXX:

This is further to your complaint (“complaint”) to the Canadian Human Rights Commission (Commission). You allege that the Government of Canada’s (federal government) provisions in an Amnesty Order1 for prohibited firearms result in adverse differential treatment based on the grounds of race and national or ethnic origin, contrary to the Canadian Human Rights Act (the Act). To date the Commission has received many similar complaints.

Under s. 40(1) of the Act, an individual may file a complaint with the Commission if they have reasonable grounds “for believing that a person is engaging or has engaged in a discriminatory practice”. The term “discriminatory practice” generally means to adversely differentiate "on a prohibited ground" under the Act.

The threshold to show reasonable grounds in a complaint is low. However, the Commission is satisfied that in this case, the complaint does not demonstrate reasonable grounds that the federal government is engaging in a discriminatory practice.

The Amnesty Order provides a period of time to allow people to safely dispose of firearms newly-prohibited under the Criminal Code2. The Amnesty Order also permits people who already possess a prohibited firearm, to hunt in the following limited circumstances until they can obtain another firearm3 :

“in the exercise of a right recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982”, which recognizes and affirms the existing aboriginal and treaty rights of Aboriginal people in Canada; or,
“to sustain [a] person or their family”. This exception for sustenance hunting is available to any individual, irrespective of their race or national or ethnic origin.

The Amnesty Order expires on April 30, 20224. After it expires, the prohibition on firearms will apply to all persons, although the federal government has indicated it will engage with Indigenous communities to assess whether the new regulations have a continued impact on their constitutionally-protected rights5.

The crux of your complaint is that the exception in the Amnesty Order applicable to Indigenous persons exercising a s. 35 hunting right discriminates against people who are not Indigenous. This allegation does not constitute “reasonable grounds” under s. 40(1) of the Act because differentiation based on rights in s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 19826 does not result in discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Constitution is the supreme law of Canada. It takes precedence over all other Canadian laws.

Moreover, the rights guaranteed in s. 35 to Indigenous persons are unique and “flow from both their historical and cultural origins as well as their status as constitutional rights.”7 The Supreme Court of Canada has stressed that s. 35 rights are held only by Indigenous members of Canadian society8. The allegation that the temporary amnesty for Indigenous persons based on their constitutional rights results in discrimination to non-Indigenous persons does not constitute reasonable grounds to file a complaint of discrimination under the Act. Therefore, the Commission is unable to accept your complaint.

Footnotes

1 Order Declaring an Amnesty Period (2020), Canada Gazette, Part II, Vol. 154, Extra No. 3, May 1, 2020, SOR/2020-97 (Amnesty Order), s. 2(2)(i), online.

2 This is pursuant to Regulations Amending the Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and Other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited, Restricted or Non-Restricted, Canada Gazette, Part II, Vol. 154, Extra No. 3, May 1, 2020, SOR/2020-96, online.

3 Amnesty Order, supra note 1, s. 2(2)(i).

4 Amnesty Order, supra note 1, s. 2(3).

5 Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement, Canada Gazette, Part II, Vol. 154, Extra No. 3, May 1, 2020, SOR/2020-96, pp. 59-60, online.

6 Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11, s. 41.

7 Newfoundland and Labrador (Attorney General) v. Uashaunnuat (Innu of Uashat and of Mani‑Utenam), 2020 SCC 4 at para 25.

8 Ibid at para 26 citing R. v. Van der Peet, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507 at para 19 (which uses the term “aboriginal”).

[guysmiley]

Originally Posted by IronNoggin

The not unexpected response from the Human Rights Commission:

The Amnesty Order expires on April 30, 20224..

We all wish that was the true date!

[IronNoggin]

Lawsuit against Trudeau's gun grab will move forward

The Justice Centre announced that it will be moving forward in applying to challenge the constitutionality of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's Cabinet Order of confiscating property that was legally acquired by Canadians, according to the Justice Centre's website.

https://thepostmillennial.com/justic...m-confiscation

[IronNoggin]

This just in from the CCFR:

On May 2nd, the CCFR made a statement regarding a variety actions we were prepared to take to oppose the Liberal Gun Ban. Part of that statement was a commitment to coordinate mass filings of Sec.74 challenges should the RCMP revoke registrations for AR15s and other previously restricted firearms. See the end of this statement for a brief explanation of these types of challenge applications.

The purpose of this mass filing is to serve as a legal and reasonable form of protest. Though the applications would almost certainly fail to preserve the restricted classification of our firearms, the desired effect would be to allow use of our firearms while the matter is settled in court. It would also serve as an almost unmanageable bureaucratic burden on the court system resulting in delays that could stretch for years. Again, this is a reasonable and legal form of protest that could have been easily avoided had the government acted in a fair and honest way.

At this point, the CCFR has decided not to pursue this course of action. There are several factors we have considered in making this decision. The way this prohibition happened; we would not be able to continue to use our affected firearms in the interim thus negating one possible benefit. The way that Sec. 74 challenges typically work is not compatible in this situation. Next, the Canadian courts, both Provincial and Federal are significantly backlogged. Our coordinated filings would clog the courts so severely that many criminal cases would not have an opportunity to be heard in a reasonable time. This would trigger a flood of Jordan applications.

Jordan law applications are related to sec 11 of the Charter and its guarantee of a trial within a reasonable time. In 2019, a story from Global News revealed that nearly 800 criminal cases were stayed and offenders walked free because of unreasonable delays due to an overloaded court system. To date, six murder cases have been among those dismissed. There were roughly 6000 cases in Canada in danger of being abandoned as of 2018. These are the figures available.

Adding another 10,000 to 40,000 applications could result in serious criminals going unpunished for their crimes. As a law and order group, the CCFR finds this risk unacceptable. Adding the reality that this action would not allow us to use our firearms in the interim nor otherwise save them is the reason we will not pursue this course of action.

Public relations and representing licensed gun owners as the everyday, honest citizens they are, is not served by clogging the courts to make a point will fail to enhance our image to mainstream Canadians. In fact, it would leave us exposed to negative press; especially since we are already seeking remedy from the courts via our Charter challenge and injunction application.

The CCFR is currently investigating another approach to this situation. We are considering launching a single application under Sec 74 to test the limits of the law. We have two legal teams providing opinions on how much evidence can be entered and whether constitutional arguments can be introduced in a proceeding of this kind.

What can you do?

If you want to take the government to court, you already are. If you haven’t supported the CCFR’s legal fund, consider doing that. The CCFR is the first firearm organization to directly sue the government and file a charter challenge on behalf of gun owners in Canadian history. Our decision to not coordinate a mass filing is one we have made as an organization. We continually endeavor to be a firearm rights organization you can be proud to support. Stay tuned for more information as it becomes available.

https://firearmrights.ca/en/ccfr-mes...74-challenges/

[32-40win]

Nog, you need to watch the new CCFR vid in the C71 thread, last post, CCFR says that they will not clog the courts by calling for a mass filing, courts can't handle it. If you want to file your own, you can, but by the time it gets heard, the amnesty could well be over, is essentially what they've said. And it may not help their main case as it would likely reflect badly upon them. Welcome to politics.

[IronNoggin]

Originally Posted by 32-40win

Nog, you need to watch the new CCFR vid in the C71 thread, last post, CCFR says that they will not clog the courts by calling for a mass filing, courts can't handle it. If you want to file your own, you can, but by the time it gets heard, the amnesty could well be over, is essentially what they've said. And it may not help their main case as it would likely reflect badly upon them. Welcome to politics.

Yep, aware of all of that.
Trying to make up my mind whether to file or not.
One one hand I understand what they are getting at.
On the other, I want to DO SOMETHING...

Nog

[IronNoggin]

Interesting Turn of Events:

The RCMP’s “Not A-Registration-Certificate-Revocation” Letter

Nullified: make legally null and void; invalidate.

Revocation: the official cancellation of a decree, decision, or promise.

Late last week, a letter from the RCMP began landing in the mailboxes of gun owners across the country. It arrived in a plain envelope and stated the following:

Firearm Registration Certificate Impacted by the Amended Classification Regulations

“Certain restricted firearms which were registered to you have been affected by the recent regulatory amendments. These firearms, listed below, are now classified as prohibited and the previous registration certificates are automatically nullified and are therefore no longer valid but should be retained as a historical registration record.”

First, this is not a revocation letter as defined in the Firearms Act . This is just another notice that you possess firearms prohibited by the May 1st gun ban by Order in Council. Nothing more.

There may be no ability to file a Section 74 reference hearing based on the RCMP’s latest missive.

It seems the reason the RCMP did not mention the legal option of challenging this notice or invoking the 30-day window of opportunity to do so is because… wait for it… this letter is not a revocation notice.

* Firearms Act Subsection 72(1) states that when the Registrar revokes a registration certificate, the Registrar shall give you notice in the prescribed form .

* Subsection 72(2) also states that the notice must include reasons for the decision and must be accompanied by a copy of sections 74 to 81 of the Firearms Act, which describes the appeal process in a case a certificate is revoked.

* To clarify, if the Registrar wants to revoke your registration certificate, he must give you notice, in proper form, including a reproduction of the sections of the Firearms Act that explain how to appeal the decision. Because the Registrar did not follow this required format, the nullification letters appear to be invalid.

By characterizing Registration Certificate Numbers as “no longer valid” instead of issuing a Registration Certificate Revocation Notice, the RCMP is playing a game of trickery . [i]

They’re attempting to cheat us of our longstanding legal recourse to challenge their actions as specified in Section 74 of the Firearms Act .

74 (1) Subject to subsection (2), where
(a) a chief firearms officer or the Registrar refuses to issue or revokes a licence, registration certificate, authorization to transport, authorization to export or authorization to import… the applicant for or holder of the licence, registration certificate, authorization or approval may refer the matter to a provincial court judge in the territorial division in which the applicant or holder resides.

It's déjà vu all over again.

This is not the first time the RCMP has played this game of deceit with gun owners.

“I ran into this during the 12(6) handgun issue 18 years ago,” said Ed Burlew LL.B., one of the foremost experts in Canadian firearms law.

“I took this issue to Federal Court and won. [ii] The Court ordered the Registrar of Firearms to issue Revocation notices for every ‘invalid’ registration certificate for owners of 12(6) handguns who purchased their firearms between February 1995 and December 1, 1998. That caused quite an upset at the Registrar's Office. The Registrar had to issue thousands of the Revocation Letters and the owners filed for Section 74 hearings, as is their right under the Firearms Act .”

More importantly, a legal principle was upheld and the decision set a legal precedent. After Mr. Burlew’s win, due process of law was followed.

Ultimately, those Section 74 hearings were unsuccessful, he said, and the court determined the Certificates were indeed invalid. [iii]

The end result this time may be the same as it was then, but we won’t know until a judge rules on the status of the RCMP’s letter.

Is it a valid Firearms Registration Certificate Revocation or not?

Only a federal court judge can say for sure.

‘Administratively Expired’

“The ‘official’ description of your Registration Certificate is ‘Administratively Expired’ which is not the same as revoked. This letter merely informs you the Registration Certificate is no longer valid,” Burlew said.

And while your current Registration Certificate is no longer valid, the RCMP also cannot issue a replacement Registration Certificate under the firearm’s new Prohibited classification for two reasons:

There is no “grandfathering” section in our current firearm classification system to hold these newly-prohibited firearms. Legislation is required to create those new 12(x) classifications to allow grandfathering of current owners.

Current owners of these newly-prohibited firearms are not eligible to own Prohibited-class firearms because they do not hold a valid Registration Certificate for those firearms – even if the classification existed, which it doesn't.

It’s a slimy and deceitful Catch-22 for gun owners – brought to you by the RCMP's Canadian Firearms Centre and your federal Liberal government.

Until legislation is passed to resolve this (and many other) issues arising from the May 1st gun ban by Order in Council, these freshly Prohibited firearms are “safe queens.”

They cannot be used.

They cannot be transported.

They must sit in your gun safe until the government passes legislation allowing you to move them to the police for destruction and possible compensation – if compensation is ever offered.

At this point, compensation for government confiscation of your property is a worthless Justin Trudeau promise. It’s nothing we can take to the bank, even though this latest RCMP letter, just like the first letter and its website, talks about compensation as though it’s a done deal.

It’s not.

The RCMP must stop playing fiddler for Liberal Party sloganeering.

In a country where the rule of law held any importance at all, the RCMP would stick to the facts, not speculate about what a politician may or may not do at some future date.

But that’s an entirely different commentary, and one we will get to shortly.

CSSA's Advice

1: Do NOT get rid of your firearms based on this RCMP letter.

2: Understand that filing a Section 74 reference hearing may be a waste of your time. There may be no opportunity to do so until you receive a real revocation or the 2-year amnesty is close to expiring. There is no 30-day window imposed by your receipt of this letter.

3: Support the two legal challenges the CSSA identified that give our community its best opportunity to strike down this gun ban by Order in Council.

http://web-extract.constantcontact.c...0WgrIFDiZecnJ8

[IronNoggin]

Liberal ‘Grandfathering’ Is Concealed Confiscation

By Rick Hemmingson

A law that restricts my ability to enjoy and use my guns to nothing more than being a storage facility until I die is not “confiscation upon death.”

It is confiscation.

A gun that must stay in my safe is worth nothing. A gun that cannot be used has been turned into an ornament. An ornament is not a grandfathered gun; it is an ornament.

Not Just Semantics

Confiscation is not just about semantics. We must look to the effect; not just the words used.

It is about whether the government has taken away my right to use, enjoy, sell, not sell my property, as I see fit. That is what I had. That is what has been taken … not later. Not when I die.

It was taken NOW!

Restaurant Example

Grandfathering is typically used in a rezoning situation, for instance. If I am operating a restaurant at 101 Street and my property is rezoned to allow only a cannabis store to be built or operated at 101 Street, I can still continue to operate my restaurant because it is “grandfathered.” I can also sell my operating restaurant to someone else because that use is grandfathered. My restaurant continues to have value and I continue to do what I expected when I spent the money to build it. I am not, for instance, allowed to “grandfather” my restaurant but only if I don’t serve food!

Liberal ‘Grandfathering’ Is a Lie

Words matter. These words are a lie.

Our guns have been confiscated.

Charge for Storage

In fact, it would make more sense for gun owners to charge the federal government storage charges for keeping securely stored indefinitely the guns it has confiscated.

The value of these guns is gone because they cannot be sold.

We have been left with nothing other than the legal (criminal) obligation to provide free storage until death or to surrender them immediately.

When something is grandfathered, the status quo remains for those who lawfully owned and used a certain property.

Gun Owners Aren’t ‘Grandfathered’

Nothing has been grandfathered here simply because the government will delay marching in and taking, then destroying, my property until I die, but it is sterilized until then.

We must reject their term because it is false.

https://thegunblog.ca/2020/07/22/lib...ck-hemmingson/

[IronNoggin]

Bill Blair Repeats Lies in Response to ePetition e-2341

It should come as no surprise that Public Safety Minister Bill Blair continues to peddle lies about his May 1st gun ban by Order in Council – specifically:

“our prohibition will not impact the activities of law-abiding hunters or sport shooters.”

and

“These weapons have no legitimate civilian use, as they are designed to take as many lives as possible, as efficiently as possible.”

For the past 40 years the only legally permitted use for the AR-15 and other Restricted class rifles was target shooting. The only place these firearms could legally be discharged was at a government-approved shooting range.

This is the inconvenient fact our Minister of Public Safety conveniently ignores.

“The affected firearms are prohibited as they (1) have semi-automatic action with sustain rapid-fire capability (tactical/military design with large magazine capacity), (2) are of modern design, and (3) are present in large volumes in the Canadian market.”

It should also come as no surprise that Justice Minister David Lametti backs up Bill Blair’s lies with specious claims this is about keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals.

“The Government made amendments to the Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and Other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited, Restricted or Non-Restricted (the Regulations) to classify certain assault-style firearms as prohibited to reduce gun violence, the threat they pose to public safety, as well as their prevalence on the market.”

Both Lametti and Blair peddle this garbage about “present in large volumes” and “their prevalence” in the Canadian market.

By this rationale the Liberal government could ban any firearm they please.

The AR-15 platform is the single most popular modern sporting rifle in North America.

The Ruger 10/22 is the single most popular .22 rifle in North America.

The RCMP already banned magazines for this beloved rifle and, given the two minister’s comments about popularity being one of three primary factors for banning guns, don’t be surprised if the Ruger 10/22 is banned next.

Buy-Back Program?

Once again Minister Blair peddled the line about a buy-back program.

“We have been clear that our prohibition will not impact the activities of law-abiding hunters or sport shooters. We have also signalled our intent to implement a buyback program that will provide fair compensation to affected owners”

To anyone who believes a buy-back program for guns prohibited under the May 1st Order in Council is in the offing, I would advise a word of caution.

A gun buy-back is nothing more than a promise from ministers of, arguably, the most corrupt government in Canadian history.

The government’s buy-back promise served a single purpose – to lower the volume on dissent and reduce opposition from gun owners.

Largely, it’s worked. Outside of a comparatively small band of committed firearm enthusiasts, the common sentiment among gun owners is, “Well, at least they’re going to pay for my gun when they steal it.”

I wouldn’t hold my breath on that.

This government is long on making promises and short on keeping them.

Electoral reform
Indigenous Reconciliation
Balanced the Budget by 2019
Restore Canada Post home delivery
Make Access to Information open by default
Ensure Access to Information laws apply to the Prime Minister’s office as well as all other government minister’s offices
Change the House of Commons Standing Orders to end practice of using omnibus bills to hide items the government does not want scrutinized
Create a Prime Minister’s Question Period

That’s just a partial list of their broken promises, and these are things the Liberals actually believed in prior to forming government.

Paying gun owners for their confiscated rifles? I guarantee you that’s at the bottom of this Liberal government’s priority list.

https://christopherdiarmani.com/1589...tition-e-2341/