Archive | Property Rights RSS feed for this section
June 5, 2014

Bruce Montague’s Response to Forfeiture Order

Mike Ackermann liked this post

By now you must all be aware of the ruling we received from the appeal court of Ontario a couple of days ago. I am not really surprised that we lost but I am surprised that they decided to increase my punishment by also stealing my ammunition.

As bad as this ruling is, our lawyers at the CCF (Canadian Constitution Foundation) found some encouraging aspects to it. There are a couple of legal principles we put forward and the court affirmed them. This not only should help if we appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada but it will also help others that get caught up in the snare of laws designed to persecute firearms owners. This is the first defeat we’ve taken that has some tangible pluses that will help gun owners in general.

My short explanation of one small legal victory is that the confiscation of my firearms and ammunition was indeed a punishment. Up until now it has never been considered a punishment, although to most people it seems obvious that losing your valuable property is indeed very punishing. This precedent should be helpful for others who are facing sentencing because now the value of the property should now be considered as part of the sentence. This may be a small plus, but you take what you can get.

Also on our side was a very strong bias shown by the court against firearms owners. This has been spotted in past rulings as many of you have commented on. Up until now we didn’t have any idea of how to address this. Things will change in future court hearings as a result. – – “Live and learn.”

I am quite surprised at how much media attention this ruling has gotten. Whatever the reason, I’m glad that this story is getting out. More people need to be aware of how easily the government and court system can take away your rights and your property. I’m hopeful that by the time we are in court fighting for our house, even non-gun owners will wake up to this travesty of justice.

The way in which the law is written in regards to taking our house (civil forfeiture laws), I don’t see any legal argument to stop them from taking it. We will be at the mercy of the courts, and so far I haven’t seen any mercy from them. The only chance I see us having is if the common people of this country speak up and say enough is enough!

I wish I had more promising news than this to report. I am reminded of what our past lawyer Doug Christie told me before he died. He told me that even if we don’t win in the courts we are still doing a positive thing for firearms owners and even the general population by standing up and fighting as long as possible. The people need to see these important issues argued because regardless of the courts ruling, each individual will have his own perception of whether justice was served. Sometimes losing in court will give you the best outcome in the long run. (It’s kind of like the Martyr effect.)

If you think this fight is worth fighting I would encourage you to visit the CCF website ( and make a donation. Now that the CCF has offered to represent us we now defer all donations to them. They are sincere and dedicated to doing a great job defending all our rights. Please let your non-gun owning friends see what can happen when you fall out of favour with our justice system.

Yours in Liberty,

Bruce Montague

P.S. I was in a discussion with my son who is a Lutheran pastor and this famous quote came up. It seemed quite applicable in this case because most people, if they are not gun owners don’t realize the threat this law is for everyone.

“In Germany they first came for the communists
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a communist.
They came for the Jews
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the trade Unionists
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics
and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.”

– -Pastor Martin Niemoller (Lutheran Pastor)

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

June 4, 2014

Gunsmith Bruce Montague, Dr. Henry Morgentaler and Abortion Law

Keltie Zubko, Mike Ackermann liked this post

That may seem an odd title but it will make sense shortly.

The Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in R. v. Montague, 2014 ONCA 439, in which the government’s desire to seize Bruce Montague’s complete firearms and ammunition collection came to its unjust conclusion.

Ontario’s Court of Appeal heard arguments for and against the forfeiture of over $100,000 of firearms and ammunition on November 15, 2013. At that time they reserved judgment to give justices Feldman, Gillese and Tulloch time to rationalize the State’s cash grab.

Justice Feldman, writing the appeal court’s unanimous decision, took 32 pages to explain seizing Montague’s entire firearm collection and ammunition was not only constitutional, it was also rational and proportional to the “crime” Bruce and Donna Montague committed.

For those unfamiliar with this case, Bruce Montague traveled across Canada for 18 months seeking arrest for violating Canada’s Firearms Act. Being a man of principle he believed, as I do, that Canada’s Firearms Act violates the rights of those mere citizens who dare own firearms.

Montague believed a constitutional challenge of the Firearms Act would result in the court declaring it unconstitutional, forcing the government to write a more sensible and rational law, one that does not violate our constitutional rights.

So why did Bruce Montague allow both his business firearms license for his gunsmithing business and his personal firearms license expire?

To answer question that I need to step away from Bruce Montague’s case and go to Dr. Henry Morgentaler, the abortion issue and the legal term “standing”.

Prior to this ruling, section 251.9 of the Criminal Code,allowed for abortions to be performed at only accredited hospitals with the proper certification of approval from the hospital’s Therapeutic Abortion Committee.

Three doctors, Dr. Henry Morgentaler, Dr. Leslie Frank Smoling and Dr. Robert Scott, set up an abortion clinic in Toronto for the purpose of performing abortions on women who had not received certification from the Therapeutic Abortion Committee, as required under subsection 287(4) of the Criminal Code. In doing so they were attempting to bring public attention to their cause, claiming that a woman should have complete control over the decision on whether to have an abortion.

Abortion was illegal when Morgentaler first opened his Toronto abortion clinic, except in very specific cases and with very specific permissions required. Morgentaler disliked that, and wanted to challenge the constitutionality of Canada’s abortion statute but an individual cannot challenge a law, any law, unless they have what in legal terms is called “standing”.

This means unless the law will adversely affect you personally you have no right, or “standing”, to challenge the legislation. In other words, unless you are charged with breaking the law you have no standing to challenge the law in court.

So Henry Morgentaler broke the law. Repeatedly and across the country. He opened an abortion clinic, performed illegal abortions until police arrested him and charged him with a crime. He then posted bail and repeated the process in another process until his case eventually landed before the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court struck down Canada’s abortion law, leaving Canada with no law on abortion at all to this day.

Henry Morgentaler is hailed a hero for his fight for “abortion rights”. He was awarded the Order of Canada “for his commitment to increased health care options for women, his determined efforts to influence Canadian public policy and his leadership in humanist and civil liberties organizations.

In other words, for daring to violate Section 251 of the Criminal Code of Canada in order to make his point in court.

Without violating that law Henry Morgentaler did not have “standing” to challenge its constitutionality, which brings me back to Bruce Montague.

The issue the courts consistently refused to acknowledge is Bruce Montague specifically and deliberately broke the law in order to challenge the constitutionality of Canada’s Firearms Act, just as Henry Morgentaler did with Canada’s abortion law.

At every level of our justice system, from the Ontario Provincial Police (who used Bruce Montague’s gunsmithing services themselves) and Crown prosecutors to the trial judge, superior court judges and Court of Appeal judges, every single one attempted to paint Bruce Montague as a danger to society; a threat to the nation and a potential terrorist.

Not a single person in the entire justice system ever acknowledged Bruce Montague’s very public protests across the nation or his repeated and public statements against the Firearms Act.

Montague_PlacardThey simply branded him as a terrorist, a threat to public safety, and mainstream media outlets did what they do best; they parroted the party line on Bruce Montague even while running photographs of his public protests alongside their “articles”.

For example, the Court of Appeal in 2010 made this ludicrous statement, as though Bruce Montague actually intended to violently overthrow the government.

In September 2004, acting on the authority of two search warrants, the police seized more than 200 firearms and related devices, together with in excess of 20,000 rounds of ammunition and boxes of military­ related books and associated paraphernalia from the Montagues’ home. Many of these weapons were discovered in a hidden storage room in the basement of the house. It is fair to say that the quantity and nature of the seized arsenal of weapons and associated items may have been sufficient for a small-scale insurrection.

No, it is not.

Bruce Montague’s sole desire, as he stated repeatedly and publicly across the nation, was to challenge the constitutionality of a law he felt violated his Charter Rights and Freedoms. He was not preparing to mount a “small-scale insurrection“.

At no point would any level of our justice system acknowledge, just as the Ontario Court of Appeal refused to acknowledge in Monday’s ruling, that Bruce Montague could not challenge the constitutionality of a law without “standing”; without breaking the very law he disagreed with and be charged with a crime.

Henry Morgentaler did so and we rewarded him with the Order of Canada, citing “his determined efforts to influence Canadian public policy”.

Bruce Montague’s “determined efforts to influence Canadian public policy” earned him 18 months in prison.

He also forfeits his life savings in firearms and ammunition (valued at over $100,000) and that still isn’t enough punishment as far as the government is concerned.

The Government of Ontario, under Ontario’s civil forfeiture law, will now steal the Montague’s family home and acreage valued at roughly $250,000.

By the time our government is done with Bruce and Donna Montague they will be penniless, homeless and jobless, and Canadian judges dare call this “justice“?

Only to fascist thugs who refuse to face the most fundamental fact of this entire case: Bruce Montague used civil disobedience in order to challenge the constitutionality of a bad law.

Anyone who believes Bruce Montague deserved to spend 18 months in prison, forfeit his entire life savings and now forfeit his home and acreage on top of it all clearly checked their humanity at the door.

Yes, I mean you, James McKeachie.

It is in no way “proportional” to the victimless paper crime committed by Bruce Montague. He refused to renew his firearms license. He refused to obtain registration certificates for his firearms. For this he will lose everything he worked his entire life for, including the beautiful log home he literally built with his own two hands.

[50] Some Canadian case-law has held that forfeiture will not be cruel and unusual punishment for someone who deliberately chooses to commit an offence that puts the particular property at risk, regardless of the value of the forfeited property in comparison to the gravity of the offence: see Turner v. Manitoba, 2001 MBCA 207, 160 Man. R. (2d) 256; R. v. Spence, 2004 NLSCTD 113, 238 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 259.

[51] In this case, it is most unfortunate for the appellants that they chose to challenge the firearms licensing laws by putting all their firearms at risk. However, in my view, the fact that it was their deliberate action that put so much property at risk is not the full reason why its forfeiture does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. It is because the forfeiture consequences cannot be viewed as grossly disproportionate or even disproportionate at all.

As I said earlier, there is no way to challenge the constitutionality of a law in Canada without breaking that law so you have “standing”.

That is not a choice to put your entire life savings, home and property “at risk”. It’s a decision to challenge an unjust law that unfairly penalizes Canada’s most law-abiding citizens: legal gun owners.

Seriously… who else must pass repeated police background checks and notify the government within 30 days of moving residences or face 2 years in prison?

Certainly not rapists and child molesters.

Forcing them to register is a violation of their civil rights.

Gun owners however, as evidenced by Bruce Montague’s case, have no civil rights. Rendering him penniless and homeless is a rational and proportional punishment for the crime of refusing to obtain a firearms license.

[59]Considering all the factors as they apply to the facts in this case, it cannot be said that the cumulative forfeiture of these weapons would outrage community standards of decency so as to amount to cruel and unusual punishment.

So says the Ontario Court of Appeals, who clearly don’t listen to the Montague’s community members or anyone in Canada’s vast firearms community. Every one of us are outraged at this cruel and unusual punishment that rendered the Bruce and Donna Montague penniless and will soon render them homeless as well.

But once again I forget; we’re gun owners. We are not part of the “community standards of decency“.

We’re lower than rapists and child molesters.



If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

June 3, 2014

Civil Asset Forfeiture and the Lack of Due Process


I’ve written on civil asset forfeiture a lot lately and in response to my latest article, BC Civil Asset Forfeiture Office Proud to Steal From Mere Citizens, I received a email asking if I would post an information graphic on my website.

The infographic, created by, goes into great detail of the abuses of civil asset forfeiture laws across the United States.

Some of the “low-lights” of civil asset forfeiture enforcement include, but are not limited to:

  • Most state and federal legislation laws allows law enforcement to keep up to 90% of what they take from citizens.
  • Only 8 states do not allow law enforcement to keep any of the proceeds
  • 26 states allow law enforcement to keep 100% of the assets they seize
  • In only 6 states must the government prove you are guilty of a crime before seizing your property. (Actually, this is now 7 as Minnesota just enacted civil forfeiture reform that requires government to prove guilt.)
  • From 1990 to 2005 the value of assets seized was relatively consistent at between $300 – $500 million
  • In 2006 this jumped to $841 million and that number has risen ever since
  • Despite 74% of we mere citizens believing property owners should be presumed innocent the vast majority of civil asset forfeiture laws, including all those here in Canada, presume you are guilty, even if you are never arrested of charged with an offense.

Civil Forfeiture

an infographic from

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

March 31, 2014

Firearm Registration: Formerly Law-Abiding Connecticut Gun Owners Face Increased Pressure


As rumours of door-to-door gun confiscations run wild on the internet, Connecticut gun owners who were law-abiding citizens on December 31, 2013, are now criminals under a new law banning so-called “assault weapons”.

State officials continue to ratchet up the rhetoric about these heinous threats to public safety, while gun owners realize once again that Firearm Registration Equals Firearm Confiscation.

Connecticut’s Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection announced Friday it sent a letter to all known firearm owners who failed to register their firearms and magazines by the January 1, 2014 deadline.

Officials offered advice on what to do now with the weapons and magazines.

The letter says gun owners are in compliance with the new state law if their items are no longer in Connecticut or were sold to an authorized gun dealer.

Those who fail to comply face charges of possessing an unregistered assault weapon and/or high capacity magazine.

As Canada’s RCMP just accomplished here in Canada with their reclassification of formerly non-restricted firearms, Connecticut lawmakers devalued the firearm collections of law-abiding gun owners across the state.

While mere citizens may retain ownership and possession of their now-illegal items, that possession comes at a cost. You must register each “assault rifle” and “high capacity magazine” or face criminal charges.

You may ONLY transfer ownership/possession of your now-illegal items to law-enforcement, a licensed firearms dealer or anyone outside the State of Connecticut.

From the State of Connecticut Department of Emergency Services document (pdf) regarding P.A.13-3:

Q: As a private citizen, will I ever be able to legally transfer ownership of my Large Capacity Magazines?

A: Yes. Under the Act, you may transfer your LCMs to any police department and you may legally sell them to a licensed dealer or to anyone outside the state. You may also transfer your lawfully declared LCMs by bequest or intestate succession (i.e. you died without a will), or, upon the death of a testator or settlor: (A) To a trust, or (B) from a trust to a beneficiary. Any other transfer is a Class D felony.

We mere citizens may rest easy knowing that these restrictions on our private property rights do NOT affect serving law enforcement members.

They only apply to the mere citizens of the allegedly democratic state of Connecticut.

As I have said many times before paraphrasing George Orwell’s Animal Farm,

Some pigs are more equal than others.


If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

March 18, 2014

The Civilian Range Project – An Idea Whose Time Is NOW



The Civilian Range Project.

Back in 2009, when we were fighting for the passage of Bill C-301, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police came out in favour of the bill and against civilian gun owners.

Many gun owners were displeased with that attitude of distrust for Canada’s most law-abiding citizens. We looked for a solution.

After pondering what we could do about their antics a few innovative thinkers came up with a simple idea.

The Civilian Range Project.

It’s an elegant and simple project. Let me explain.

Almost every shooting range in Canada is run by a non-profit group formed by hunters and fishers. We band together to create a resource we can all make use of and, as part of our commitment to community service, we rent our shooting ranges to local law enforcement at very reasonable rates.

Those same law enforcement agencies insist on making us the scapegoats for “gun crime” and any other perceived evil they can lay at the feet of law-abiding gun owners.

It’s high time that abuse ended.

The Civilian Range Project is this:

We are the creators and maintainers of our shooting ranges. Police forces shoot on our ranges because we allow them the privilege. And it is a privilege.

It is now time to rescind that privilege, effective immediately.

Until the RCMP and other police forces stop treating law-abiding gun owners like common criminals we will no longer rent our civilian ranges to them. Period.

Canadian law enforcement of all stripes must find some other place for their members to train using their firearms.

RCMP, municipal police, prison guards, border guards, wildlife enforcement officers and sheriffs do not have access to government-run shooting ranges. Very few such ranges exist.

Every single member who carries a duty firearm MUST qualify with that firearm each year. That means they must shoot somewhere.

Until now each of these government agencies arranged and paid for access to our civilian shooting ranges.

It is time these government agencies at the local, provincial and federal level learned that if they insist on treating us like “the enemy” we will no longer treat them like friends.

They are no longer welcome on our shooting ranges, effective immediately.

Will this require a sacrifice from gun clubs?


It is very easy to become addicted to the money that flows from contracts with government policing agencies. It may mean we raise our membership rates a little to cover the shortfall or more fundraising dinners.

We cannot allow ourselves to be bought off with 30 pieces of silver.

We are worth far more than that.

Our shooting ranges are worth far more than that.

Our lives, the very essence of who we are that the RCMP and other policing agencies are so quick to demonize to advance their anti-gun political agenda, are worth more than that.

It’s time we valued ourselves correctly.

We have an immense amount of power at our fingertips. The real question is whether we possess the fortitude, the strength of will, to exercise that power in a simple, legal, and effective manner.

Canadian law enforcement is no longer welcome on our civilian ranges. Period.

This will generate press coverage.

This will generate political attention.

This will get the attention of the head of every policing agency in the nation, provided we have the will to do one simple thing.

Deny police agencies access to our civilian shooting ranges.

We must amend the rules of our shooting clubs to include one simple qualifier:

No range member may use our facilities while in uniform, while on duty or while using agency-owned firearms. ONLY civilian-owned firearms are permitted.

You can imagine the outrage we will face from our police members and from police agencies themselves.

They will threaten. They will cajole. More than likely our friends at the Provincial Chief Firearms Offices will threaten to revoke our range operation approvals.

That, of course, is an empty threat. They can’t shut us down for safety reasons and then give themselves access to that same “unsafe” shooting range, can they? Well, not without proving themselves colossal hypocrites, anyway. All of which would work in our favour in the Court of Public Opinion.

We can expect a staring match for months.

We simply cannot blink. We cannot let our greed for government money override our principles. We must find alternative ways of funding our clubs or reduce our need for that income.

Police agencies, however, MUST train and qualify their members annually. They have NO CHOICE.

Can they hold out for a while? Absolutely. But they cannot hold out for an entire year. They wouldn’t have anyone left qualified to carry a duty firearm.

We break no laws by implementing the The Civilian Range Project.

Our shooting ranges are private property owned and operated by our non-profit groups. We can rent them to whomever we please. We can refuse to rent them to whomever we please.

When someone punches you in the face repeatedly do you ask him over for dinner?

This is a simple plan. It only takes a single motion on the floor of our next general meeting. We can pass this plan and implement it at our facilities in a single day.

We rely on no votes but our own. We simply require each and every member of our gun clubs to vote for our self-interest for a change, and to forget the government handout.

Police forces and politicians do their very best to marginalize and ostracize us. The latest in a long line of examples is the Nanaimo RCMP SKS issue.

It’s high time we fight back with the single best tool in our arsenal: our shooting ranges.

We own them.

We control who uses them.

They need them.

Today is the day to leverage that ownership and control of our civilian shooting ranges; to explain to Canada’s policing agencies in very clear terms that we ought to be their friends, not the enemies they believe we are.

They can treat us like enemies as long as they like, but with every choice comes consequence.

They must find somewhere else to shoot.

We are NOT the enemy of police. We never were.

We are Canada’s most law-abiding citizens.

Somewhere along the way our nation’s police forces decided we were merely criminals-in-waiting, not their greatest allies. They ought to learn the lesson Detroit Police Chief James Craig learned; that mere citizens owning firearms is a good thing.

When and only when our nation’s police forces treat us with the respect we have earned will they be welcome at our shooting facilities again.

Put the ball in their court. See how fast they blink. You will, I’m sure, be amazed.

Download the complete Civilian Range Project documentation, draft motion, sample letter to RCMP Commissioner Robert Paulson and signage for your facility.


If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

March 12, 2014

Solar Power and Rainwater Collection Declared Illegal?



We’re told endlessly that we must be responsible for the energy we use; that we must be energy-self-sufficient; that the world as we know it will literally come to an end of we don’t buy into the eco-frenzy.

I have no issue with being energy-self-sufficient. In fact I completely agree with the philosophy.

Twenty-five years ago the power company wanted an exorbitant amount of my money in return for sending me an electricity bill each month. I told them to pound sand. I installed solar panels almost immediately and have run my home on them ever since.

Cut to Cape Coral, Florida, where Robin Speronis, a 54-year-old former real estate agent, had a judge declare her solar panels and rain-water collection system illegal.

From Living Off The Grid:

Speronis, a former real estate agent, decided to adopt an off the grid lifestyle in the home she owns after her husband died after a long illness. She cited her faith in God and desire to be self-sufficient.

It was an interest in empowering myself, like we did when we got off the health care system,” she said. “I wanted to look at every other part of my lifestyle and say, do I need this? Is this of value to me? If it went away tomorrow, what would I do? The more I got into it, the more exciting, the more of an adventure it became.

Then came the bureaucrats and with them their deeply ingrained fervor for “following the rules” and their highly illogical sense of injustice.

Last November a bylaw code enforcement officer showed up at the Speronis home and promptly tried evicting Robin Speronis from her own home.

The reason? Robin refused to use public utilities.

At the root of the case is an outdated and idiotic requirement that every home must be connected to the city water system. This dates back to the time when the city deemed using well water a sin and forced everyone to use the city water system.
The Cape Coral city bureaucrats now claim dominion over the skies and the water that falls freely from them. Collecting rain water is now considered a violation of this outdated (did I mention idiotic) city ordnance too.

Her case ended up in court, where Special Magistrate Harold S. Eskin made an utterly absurd ruling.

While declaring the bylaw regulations of Cape Coral redundant and unreasonable, Eskin ruled simultaneously that Robin Speronis violated both local city codes and the International Property Maintenance Code, which unilaterally declares any home without grid-sourced electricity and running water is “unsafe and unsanitary“.

In a word… Hogwash.

Speronis’s case should be a wakeup call for anyone living off the grid. The International Property Maintenance Code and similar regulations are on the books in many parts of the United States and Canada.

Speronis refuses to bow to the city’s demands, though, even while they force liens on her property and continue to issue more fines associated with her ‘violations.’ She is able to appeal the judge’s decision, which would allow her to carry on with her sustainable lifestyle.

She has said, “We have a long, long road to go. I’m sure justice will prevail.”

Living in harmony with nature is now a crime?

I can’t wait for the eco-freaks to catch onto this story.

They’ll surely shred Special Magistrate Harold S. Eskin with his own stupidity, and rightfully so.

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

March 10, 2014

RCMP Promotes Anti-Bullying Initiative While Bullying Gun Owners



While the RCMP promoted Pink Shirt Day as a way of stopping bullying in schools, the horsemen took to bullying some of Canada’s best and most law-abiding citizens: gun owners.

In true hypocritical fashion, the Boys with the Yellow Stripes did precisely as they pleased and with zero regard for the people they bullied into criminals.
RCMP Commissioner Robert Paulson’s Facebook photo said this underneath:

“February 26th is Pink Shirt Day, and RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson is proud to be a part of this initiative. Bullying and Cyberbullying isn’t just hurtful; in some cases, it’s illegal. Don’t take part. Take a stand.”

It’s a nice thought, Commish, and you’re right.

Bullying Hurts. I know. I’m a gun owner… Just like the 13,000 gun owners you bullied into criminals this week.

The comments section overflows with vitriol over the creation of over 13,000 brand new criminals by unaccountable RCMP bureaucrats, a situation that has taken RCMP–Gun Owner relations to an all-time low. That says a lot given how poor those relations were even before this latest anti-gun-owner stunt!

Justin Thomas:

You’ve lost the trust of a great number of people, people the law is supposed to be protecting. Turning its own citizens into criminals overnight. We are the ones who should be trusted, not you.

Caleb Geauvreau:

This man is responsible for constantly bullying law abiding firearms owners. I cannot support the RCMP or their pink shirts as long is this man is allowed to remain in his position. Please resign and do everyone a favor.

Al Yasinski:

he should stick to bullying and leave peoples guns alone….he is the bully !!

Stephen Weese:

Perhaps you should ware you handguns at the next meet with the prime minister like you do with your daughters boyfriends. See what intimidation gets you from him. Don’t bully gun owners.

Eric Yule:

The RCMP are deleting negative posts on here…. confiscate weapons without government consent, controlling social media, while still presenting an anti bullying campaign.

John C Corden:

Delete all the posts you want but angry gun owners aren’t going to quit posting until you go after the real criminals and quit unfairly targeting us. You some anti-gun Liberal from Quebec or something? Oh and resign. Did I say resign?

Is always the need for non-white toilet paper when in the field.

Referencing a year-old video interview where Paulson is positively gleeful while he recounts stories of bullying his daughter’s suitors by answering the door wearing his duty firearm in a variety of holsters, Ryan Lobson writes:

Isn’t intimidating your daughter’s boyfriends with your “device” bullying? Get your head on straight Bob.

No, it’s not. It’s just another day in the RCMP… where hypocrisy knows no bounds.

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

March 7, 2014

Gun Reclassification: Royal Canadian Mounted Police or Rogue Cops Making Policy?



After the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) arbitrarily manufactured over 13,000 “gun criminals” last week by reclassifying Swiss Arms and CZ 858 rifles from non-restricted to prohibited, Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney announced a 5-year amnesty protecting those formerly law-abiding gun owners from prosecution.

Gun owners across the country are understandably upset. One day they were law-abiding gun owners complying with every law required to own these firearms, the next day they are criminals facing serious prison time.

“It is a dark day when police, not the people’s elected representatives, can suddenly transform thousands of ordinary, law-abiding Canadians into criminals with the stroke of a bureaucratic pen,” writes Lorne Gunter.

Presumably the 5-year limitation on this amnesty is because Minister Blaney will resolve this abuse of RCMP bureaucratic power long before that deadline. How he will resolve it remains to be seen, but preventing the RCMP from arresting and criminally charging these gun owners is a good first step.

As Matt Gurney wrote in the National Post,

“That’s a good first step, but no more than that. The RCMP’s reclassification of these firearms, suddenly turning normal Canadians into outlaws for owning property the RCMP had already approved, was outrageous. No explanation was offered as to why these firearms had suddenly become more dangerous. No incidents of violence were cited, no new information brought forward. In effect, the RCMP changed its mind, and ordered citizens to turn over equipment they had invested thousands of dollars into or else face criminal charges. This is a grotesque abuse of power, and one that the police should not have. In a free society, the police enforce the laws, and even interpret them with trained judgment, but they do not make them up as they go.”

While many gun owners on internet forums are absolutely furious Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney didn’t do more, I would suggest they are overly impatient, if not naïve.

My first reaction was outrage at the initial announcement too, but after taking a breath and thinking about what Minister Blaney said publicly I’m betting on a longer game than simply giving amnesty to these newly manufactured “criminals”.

Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney made it crystal clear the RCMP’s actions are unacceptable. He has no interest in allowing RCMP bureaucrats to create policy.

“I want to assure you all options are on the table to fix this situation. I will also be taking steps to make sure this never happens again.”

Ensuring the RCMP can never again manufacture 13,000 criminals out of thin air will take more than a weekend to work out.

That the amnesty came immediately is a positive sign of Minister Blaney’s intentions. There is more to come, of that I am confident.

I am every bit as impatient as any Canadian gun owner, but I am confident Minister Blaney will keep his word and ensure “this never happens again.”

There are a lot of options available to the Minister of Public Safety and only a fool would believe Blaney is not cognizant the pro-gun vote depends on his actions on this issue.

He could strip the RCMP of its duties as they relate to the Canadian Firearms Safety Program. He could issue an Order In Council to resolve many outstanding issues, including this one.

What ultimately must be addressed, however, is the core issue of the RCMP’s systemic hatred of Canada’s law-abiding gun owners.

As J.R. Cox, of Calgary’s The Shooting Edge gun shop, said,

“There is a movement within the RCMP and they don’t like to see guns in the hands of anybody but themselves.”

Law-abiding gun owners used to be the RCMP’s best friends. Not any longer, although it’s not we mere citizens who have changed. We haven’t. We’re every bit as law-abiding as we’ve always been but that makes no difference to the RCMP ‘s bureaucratic thugs.

Is it simply that they feel pressure to “do something” about so-called “gun crime”? If so, they’re attacks on we law-abiding gun owners are thoroughly and completely misguided.

They are, however, completely in line with the RCMP’s core mantra:

“Officer Safety”.

Better to let a thousand “mere citizens” die than a single RCMP member.

Better to swarm and kill frustrated traveler Robert Dziekanski in 35 seconds than calm him down and help him on his way to his new home.

Better to shoot Ian Bush in the back of the head and claim self defense than tell the truth.

Better to send SWAT Teams after expired firearms license holders in Alberta than simply phone them and ask where their license renewal papers are.

Better to manufacture over 13,000 criminals out of law-abiding citizens with a stroke of your bureaucratic pen than to go after violent criminal gang members.

Taking guns from career criminals is dangerous business. Very dangerous.

Those guys will shoot back.

Law-abiding firearm owners won’t… and the RCMP knows it.

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

September 30, 2013

Gov’t of Canada Implements Cypress-style bank account theft in Economic Action Plan 2013


bankOne year ago the island state of Cypress stole money from its citizens and gave it to major bank, one of which folded anyway. Calling the theft “a necessary measure” to keep the state economically viable, politicians rewarded the very institutions responsible for the economic crisis gripping the tiny nation.

The banks will do anything to avoid the consequences of their own selfish acts and if that means stealing the bank accounts of mere citizens, well, that is precisely what they will do.

Since the political backlash from such a massive theft was so minimal, bankers in other nations are taking their cue from Cypress and lobbying politicians to steal from the bank accounts of “large deposit holders” on the premise that if you’ve been successful and earned a lot of money you must be punished for that success.

Cypress politicians stole over 10.6 billion Euros (yes, that’s with a “B”) from its citizens and handed it over to the banks. That level of government theft is astounding and unprecedented.

And it’s now being repeated elsewhere in the world.

Italy, Poland and New Zealand have all begun the process of stealing from productive citizens and handing that money over to their major banks.

Think we’re immune to such a thing here in Canada? You’d best think again.

Canada’s “Economic Action Plan 2013” specifically contains a provision for the Government of Canada to steal money from your bank account and give it to this nation’s major banks.

“This new budget actually proposes to implement a ‘bail-in’ regime for systemically important banks’ in Canada,” financial expert Michael Snyder wrote on The Economic Collapse Blog in his article “Cyprus-Style Wealth Confiscation Is Now Starting To Happen All Over The Globe.”

Now that “bail-ins” have become accepted practice all over the planet, no bank account and no pension fund will ever be 100% safe again. In fact, Cyprus-style wealth confiscation is already starting to happen all around the world. As you will read about below, private pension funds were just raided by the government in Poland, and a “bail-in” is being organized for one of the largest banks in Italy.

Unfortunately, this is just the beginning. The precedent that was set in Cyprus is being used as a template for establishing bail-in procedures in New Zealand, Canada and all over Europe. It is only a matter of time before we see this exact same type of thing happen in the United States as well. From now on, anyone that keeps a large amount of money in any single bank account or retirement fund is being incredibly foolish.

Mr. Snyder provides examples from numerous nations around the world and then explains the situation for we “mere citizens” of Canada.

Incredibly, even Canada is moving toward adopting these “bank bail-ins”. In a previous article, I explained that “bail-ins” were even part of the new Canadian government budget…

Cyprus-style “bail-ins” are actually proposed in the new Canadian government budget. When I first heard about this I was quite skeptical, so I went and looked it up for myself. And guess what? It is right there in black and white on pages 144 and 145 of “Economic Action Plan 2013” which the Harper government has already submitted to the House of Commons. This new budget actually proposes “to implement a ‘bail-in’ regime for systemically important banks” in Canada. “Economic Action Plan 2013” was submitted on March 21st, which means that this “bail-in regime” was likely being planned long before the crisis in Cyprus ever erupted.

So what does all of this mean for us?

It means that the governments of the world are eyeing our money as part of the solution to any future failures of major banks.

As a result, there is no longer any truly “safe” place to put your money.

One of the best ways to protect yourself is to spread your money around. In other words, don’t put all of your eggs in one basket. If you have your money a bunch of different places, it is going to be much harder for the government to grab it all.

But if you don’t listen to the warnings and you continue to keep all of your wealth in one giant pile somewhere, don’t be surprised when you get wiped out in a single moment someday.

I’m no fan of the Liberal Party of Canada, but you can rest assured they will NOT repeal this should Shiny Pony and his party win the next federal election.

When so-called “conservatives” decide stealing from its citizens is acceptable, there are no conservatives principles left in the corridors of power. The Conservative Party of Canada has, with the introduction of “Economic Action Plan 2013” proven they are conservative-in-name-only.

This does not bode well for Canada.

If you find the idea of stealing money from the personal bank accounts of Canadians to finance the failures of big bank abhorrent then I urge you to write and call Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and your own local Member of Parliament and make it clear their newfound path is… unacceptable.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
Telephone: 613-992-4211
Fax: 613-941-6900

Minister of Finance James Flaherty
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
Telephone: 613-992-6344
Fax: 613-992-8320

To find your own Member of Parliament’s contact information please visit:

If you do not explain to our elected “representatives” in very clear terms that their “Economic Action Plan 2013” is repulsive and unacceptable they will happily steal from you and justify that theft by saying

“It’s for your own good.”

Let me assure you, the following excerpt from Canada’s Economic Action Plan 2013 is NOT for your own good, but the banks Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty support.

Establishing a Risk Management Framework for Domestic Systemically Important Banks

Economic Action Plan 2013 will implement a comprehensive risk management framework for Canada’s systemically important banks.

Canada’s large banks are a source of strength for the Canadian economy. Our large banks have become increasingly successful in international
markets, creating jobs at home.

The Government also recognizes the need to manage the risks associated with systemically important banks—those banks whose distress or failure could cause a disruption to the financial system and, in turn, negative impacts on the economy. This requires strong prudential oversight and a robust set of options for resolving these institutions without the use of taxpayer funds, in the unlikely event that one becomes non-viable.

The Government intends to implement a comprehensive risk management framework for Canada’s systemically important banks. This framework will be consistent with reforms in other countries and key international standards, such as the Financial Stability Board’s Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes for Financial Institutions, and will work alongside the existing Canadian regulatory capital regime. The risk management framework will include the following elements:

  • Systemically important banks will face a higher capital requirement, as determined by the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.
  • The Government proposes to implement a ?bail-in? regime for systemically important banks. This regime will be designed to ensure that, in the unlikely event that a systemically important bank depletes its capital, the bank can be recapitalized and returned to viability through the very rapid conversion of certain bank liabilities into regulatory capital. This will reduce risks for taxpayers. The Government will consult
    stakeholders on how best to implement a bail-in regime in Canada. Implementation timelines will allow for a smooth transition for affected institutions, investors and other market participants.
  • Systemically important banks will continue to be subject to existing risk management requirements, including enhanced supervision and recovery and resolution plans.

This risk management framework will limit the unfair advantage that could be gained by Canada’s systemically important banks through the mistaken belief by investors and other market participants that these institutions are ? too big to fail.

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

November 20, 2012

Your Right to be Free of Unreasonable Search and Seizure does not apply in bars or other private establishments



A 2005 court ruling by the Alberta Court of Appeal makes it clear that bar staff of a privately-owned business cannot be considered “agents of the state” when they detain and search you on private property.

Judge-250x197The decision in R. v. Dell (2005 ABCA 246) is an interesting read and makes a clear distinction between private individuals employed by a private company and police or other agents of the state.

Brian Matthew Dell was discovered in the bathroom stall of a Calgary bar with a film canister that contained rock cocaine. He was found by a bouncer employed by the bar, whose duties included checking the bathroom every 15 minutes to ensure they were clean and there were no unsafe or illegal activities going on.

Mr. Dell’s attorney argued that the search by bar staff and subsequent detention until police arrived to arrest him was a violation of his Charter rights. He wanted the evidence against him, the canister of cocaine, tossed out because of that alleged Charter violation.

In upholding Mr. Dell’s conviction and denying the appeal, Madame Justice Fruman wrote the following:

[25] The Charter was instituted, in part, to address situations in which the administration of justice is called into disrepute. For this reason, remedies such as exclusion of evidence were crafted.There is no “administration of justice” involved in the momentary detention of Dell in the washroom. Dell argues that because the consequences of the detention and resulting search are grave(admission of the cocaine evidence), the Charter should apply. But Charter application depends on government action, not the severity of the consequences. Incriminating evidence collected by private persons is routinely admitted at trial without Charter scrutiny. In Shafie, supra,it was argued that although private action may not trigger the application of the Charter, when the state later proposes to use the evidence as part of a prosecution, the earlier Charter breach should engage s. 24(2) of the Charter. The Court rejected this argument, noting at p. 34 that the question whether a person’s Charter rights were infringed must be tested at the time the alleged detention occurred.


[26] In summary, unlike citizen’s arrest, investigative detention cannot be reasonably construed to be a specific government function that has been delegated to private citizens. Therefore, the principles on which Lerke is based, and the government function exception recognized in Buhay,do not apply to extend Charter protection to investigative detention. Moreover, sound policy reasons dictate that no such extension should be made.

[27] Borrowing from the language of Buhay at para. 28, the bouncer’s work may overlap with the government’s interest in preventing and investigating crime. However, it cannot be said that in conducting a brief investigative detention, the bouncer was acting as a delegate of the government,carrying out its policies and programs. Accordingly, the Charter does not apply to the actions of the bouncer in detaining Dell, or the search and seizure flowing from the detention. The cocaine evidence was properly admitted. I would therefore dismiss the appeal of the conviction for possession of cocaine.)

In concurring with Madame Justice Fruman, Justice Côté wrote the following:

B. The Common Law

[30]R. v. Lerke is reported as (1986) 67 A.R. 390, 24 C.C.C. (3d) 129 (C.A.). That case held thata citizen’s arrest is carried out under authority historically derived from the sovereign as a citizen’s duty to help keep the King’s Peace, and later merely codified in the Petty Trespass Act (or s. 494(1)of the Criminal Code). So such arrest is a state function and subject to the Charter. Does the Lerkecase help one to decide that a temporary detention by a private citizen is subject to the Charter?

[31] I suggest that it does not, because the bouncer’s right here may not exist and is regulated only by private law, and has no trace in public law rights or duties.

[32] No one suggests that the King’s Peace, or common-law obligations to arrest felons, extended to mere temporary detention to investigate. The common-law citizen’s right to arrest certainly did not, because it only extended to actual felonies, not suspected ones, nor even a reasonable appearance of a felony, which in fact had not occurred: Walters v. W.H. Smith & Son (1913) 110L.T. 345.


He went on to write:

[36] Temporary detention by private employees,whether legal or not, is private and depends upon the private rights of the detainee and the business owner. If (as here) there is no question of a public breach of the peace, the topic has nothing to do with the King’s command, the King’s Peace, or any duty owed to the sovereign. That is precisely the distinction made in R. v. Lerke, supra. When a citizen arrests another for a crime, he acts under duty to the sovereign, and the person arrested must be brought to a justice or a constable, so that a court proceeding in the name of the sovereign may be started. Any penalty is exacted by or for the government. Neither the complainant nor the victim nor the citizen arresting is a party to that criminal proceeding: R. v. Lerke, supra, at para. 22. What the bouncer did here in the washroom,and the resulting wait of 2-5 minutes, involved no such duty. Temporary detention does not require court proceedings, nor lead to any right or duty to have a prosecution.

[37] It also follows that debates about whether the bouncer had the right to and did detain the appellant in the washroom for 2-5 minutes, whether he exceeded reasonable protection of property,and whether the appellant consented, all take place in the context of torts law (and maybe the other side of that coin, property law). They have nothing to do with constitutional law.

[38] Indeed, it is arguable that the very concept of detention exists in our law only when a police officer or a government official detains, not a private citizen. See the discussion in R. v. M.R.M.[1998] 3 S.C.R. 393, 233 N.R. 1 (paras. 66-68); 355-6 (para. 12), 40 C.C.C. (3d) 411, 417-18.

Given these decisions, it would be wise to remember when you are out in public, that even though you are in a public place, it is owned and run by a private business, and some of your Charter rights do not extend so far as extinguishing their Charter Rights and Freedoms.

I would suggest, if this subject is of interest, that you read the following decisions for a sound grasp of the limits of your Rights and Freedoms in terms of search and seizure by private citizens.

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

October 16, 2012

Attn: BC Residents! You Can Still STOP Your Smart Meter Installation


The information below is if you still have your ANALOG meter in place.  Information on how to get rid of your already-installed Smart Meter is not yet available, but will be posted at Citizens For Safe Technology as soon as it is.

Here is the latest information from Citizens For Safe Technology on dealing with BC Hydro and its Smart Meter program.

Your Guide to Understanding and completing your Non-Negotiable PRIVATE NOTICE PRIVATE OWNER’S “CLAIM OF RIGHT” for “Electrical Code Compliance.” 


There are a few blanks to fill in and easy, short instructions for how to send your notice:

This is the form that is easily filled out for sending REGISTERED MAIL to BC Hydro:

You can TYPE DIRECTLY into the _________ spots, by simply clicking on them. A rectangle will appear and you can type whatever is required.


Differences between the Private & Public


This is to post by your meter. It is NOT to take the place of the written forms; it is IN ADDITION to them. Doing the “Claim of Right Form” is REQUIRED for you to help prevent meter install.

N.B. You will not be able to just post the poster and have that be the end of it. You will be required to first take the quick easy steps in the INSTRUCTION GUIDE (noted above).

Further Information:

Note that other sites within this movement against meters will be carrying this documentation so people can be referred to them also. Solidarity is key in this issue from leadership to individual, just as it has been from the beginning.

Read all of these documents in their entirety, preferably more than once. Most importantly, get this tool to as many people as possible, as soon as possible. For people without computers, or “English as a second language” persons, or anyone confused by, or incapable of following, these directions, offer to help them to fill in and send the form.

“The contents are for educational purposes only. The author is not an attorney and cannot give legal advice. If you require legal advice, by all means find a competent attorney. Please accept these offerings as given.  For some, these materials may offer assistance in finding viable solutions.”


Further, please read “R. v. Dell” below, an Alberta court case in 2005 which addresses PRIVATE RIGHTS!  Here we have a COURT OF CANADA in AGREEMENT. This case identifies the PRIVATE, and explains its POWER within the PUBLIC. Specifically how, PUBLIC laws (Legal Statutes, Acts, Policy, Bylaws, Rules and Regulations) do not apply within the PRIVATE under the Rule of Law –– the common law.

The following are excerpts taken from the case. The actual case can be read at

R. v. Dell, 2005 ABCA 246 (CanLII)


“Section 52 sets out the fundamental principle of constitutional law that the Constitution is supreme…

The mere fact a private person or entity performs what may loosely be termed a “public function” or an activity “public” in nature will not suffice to bring it within the purview of government for the purposes of section 32 of the Charter…

For the charter to apply to a private entity, it must be found to be implementing a specific governmental policy or program…

An entity may also be government not because of the nature of the entity, but because of the nature of the activity…

The Charter does not apply to interactions between private citizens, except where the private citizen acts as an agent of the state or is performing a government function…

The undoubted corollary to be drawn from this principle is that no one can be convicted of an offence under an unconstitutional law…

Any accused, whether corporate or individual, may defend a criminal charge by arguing that the law under which the charge is brought is constitutionally invalid…

And both the purpose and the effects of legislation relevant in assessing a constitutionality and either an unconstitutional purpose or an unconstitutional effect can invalidate the legislation…

A court not only has the power but the duty to regard legislation found to be inconsistent with the charter to the extent of the inconsistency as of being no longer of force or effect.”

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

September 10, 2012

Freedoms: Yours Until They Are Stolen

People don’t give a whit about freedom as long as they naively believe the government is not goring their ox, which, they painfully discover with time, it was their own personal inalienable rights that were stealthily chipped away in silence until those freedoms no longer exist.

Lutheran Pastor Martin Niemöller

Frequently, freedom-lovers allude to the famous “First They Came For” passage that refers to the dark 1930s, when Nazi Fuhrer Adolf Hitler was stoking up a full head of steam for his relentless rampage to enslave and conquer the world.

The chilling quote which warns of the dire consequences awaiting those who do not speak up, was penned by Lutheran clergyman Martin Niemöller (see his biography on page 6 of Rights and Freedoms Bulletin #91, June 30, 2012)

“In Germany, they came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.
“Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
“Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
“Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.
“Then they came for me, and by that time, nobody was left to speak up.”

For some inexplicable reason man has a nasty habit of wanting to repeat history in the name of “progressivism”.

By inserting altered passages into the “First They Came For” theme that are appropriate to a present-day context, it is easy to see how the cunning globalists, through brainwashing techniques, are successfully managing to repeat history by stealing individual freedoms while the masses sleep.

Here are some examples:

First they came for the petroleum industry, and you didn’t speak up because you were against big business polluting and making profits.

Then they came for the fur industry, and you didn’t speak up because you weren’t a trapper whose livelihood depended on the markets and working on the land.

Then they came for the tobacco industry, and you didn’t speak up because you aren’t a smoker and hate those who are.

Then they came for the corporations’ rights to advertise and promote in print, electronically and on billboards or to sponsor whoever they choose, but you didn’t speak up because you don’t own a business.

Then they stripped the tobacco companies of their intellectual property rights, such as packaging designs and logos, but you didn’t speak up because you don’t own–and don’t intend to own–any copyrights or patents. (However, once it is established in precedent-setting law that the government can ban intellectual property, then it has the vehicle to use to confiscate any and all of an individual’s intellectual, personal and fee simple property.)

Then they did confiscate fee simple mineral claims, and you didn’t speak up because you’re not a miner or prospector whose livelihood depends on the land.

Then they came for the forestry industry, and you didn’t speak up because you’re not a logger whose livelihood depends on the land.

Then they told the farmers where and for how much to sell their grain, and you didn’t speak up because you’re not an agronomist.

Then they came for the farmlands, and you didn’t speak up because you’re not a farmer whose livelihood depends on the land.

Then they came for the ranchers who depend on land to run their herds, and you didn’t speak up because you don’t raise livestock.

Then they came for the firearms, and you didn’t speak up because you’re not a gun owner and don’t like those who are.

Then they came after the churches, and you didn’t speak up because you’re not a religious person.

Then they took away 5,000 people’s mailing addresses in one town, and you didn’t speak up because you still had your postal address and the post office wasn’t losing your cheques and personal letters.

Then they passed one piece of evil legislation, treaty and policy after another through the parliamentary factories and United Nations Councils that dictate what you can and cannot do with your property, how you will behave, what you can speak and write, what you can eat, wear and own, where you can live, and what kind of light bulbs you can use, and you didn’t speak up because you weren’t paying attention.

Then they came forward with unfounded accusations and charged innocent people unjustly in the courts, and you didn’t speak up because you selfishly didn’t care what they did to somebody else as long as it wasn’t you who was being persecuted and prosecuted.

One day, they will surely come for you and your mind, intellectual, personal and real property, land, business, home, vehicles, money, and other valuables — even your children — then they’ll go for your soul, which they will conquer because you aren’t a spiritual person.

By then, nobody will be left to speak up in your defence.

You get the idea how the demonizing game works.

As Niemöller warned, people cannot rely on others to fight their fight.

You and you alone are personally responsible for vigilance in protecting your freedoms which are only yours until you let somebody else come along and steal them from you.

Yours in Liberty,

Jane Gaffin — Whitehorse, Yukon

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

August 7, 2012

When is your private property not your own? Whenever a bureaucritter of the Nanny State says so.

Michel Beauchamp and Josee Landry's front yard garden

We like to believe that when we make the most expensive purchase of our lives, our family home, we’re actually the ones who own it.  It’s a fallacy, however, as more and more homeowners, if I can even call them that, are discovering across North America.

When we buy a piece of land and a house, we believe we can do what we want with that land and home.

Oh, we’re such silly people sometimes, aren’t we?  The bureaucritters of the Nanny State, ever desirous of control over our every waking moment, continually come up with stupider and stupider rules to inflict their will on us and our property.

It wouldn’t be so bad if these bureaucratic buffoons did not have the full power and weight of the State behind them, but they do.  Submit or Die seems to be the motto these Nanny State Bureaucrats live by, and they aren’t particularly caring about which one we do, either.

Anyone who knows the story of Carl Drega knows exactly what I’m talking about.  (For the full story on Carl Drega’s decades long nightmare that ended with his death please read The Ballad of Carl Drega by Vin Suprynowicz)

Michel Beauchamp and Josee Landry's front yard gardenThe latest case of bureaucratic stupidity comes out of La Belle Provence and the town of Drummondville, where Michel Beauchamp and Josee Landry are learning all about “approved” gardening from the mindless minions of the State.

Welcome to their municipal bylaw nightmare, where growing their own food is a crime punishable by a fine of $300 PER DAY for every day they do not comply with a bureaucratic order to remove their garden.

And why must they remove their beautiful and useful garden, you ask?  It doesn’t comply with The Rules, you silly citizen!  And the Rules say every front yard MUST… yes MUST contain the prescribed amount of useless green grass or else!

Ah yes, I remember now… The Rules Are More Important Than People.  How silly of me to forget, even for a moment, that it’s the Minions of The State who are in charge of my life and not me, a mere citizen.


If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

August 6, 2012

Finally! A response from Lake Country RCMP Detachment Commander Sgt. Scott Rempel re: Pellet Gun Seizure


In the May 16, 2012 edition of the Vernon Morning Star it was reported that RCMP had seized a pellet gun from a person and were going to destroy it, despite the fact they were not laying any charges against the pellet gun owner.  This seizure arose from a complaint called in to police that someone was shooting a handgun off the north side of the dock near the Turtle Bay Pub.

As anyone who read my May 18th article “Vernon BC’s Lake Country RCMP the latest edition to Police State Canada” will already know, this action from members our national police force raised my hackles, and raised them quite well.  I wrote an open letter to the Lake Country RCMP Detachment Commander and urged everyone else to do the same.

As I wrote then,

I have absolutely no issue with the fact that the RCMP investigated the complaint of someone shooting a handgun from north side of the dock at Turtle Bay Pub.  In fact I would have been horrified had your constables not investigated.  However, once it was determined that no crime had been committed that should have been the end of the matter.

At the time RCMP Constable Kris Clark was quoted as saying

“The pellet gun they were using could’ve certainly been mistaken for a real firearm, even up close.”

He is quite correct.  Good quality pellet guns do resemble actual firearms.  The manufacturers license the designs from firearm companies in order to make a product that people will actually buy.  Imagine that.

Whether a pellet gun looks like a real firearm or not is, legally speaking, irrelevant, since pellet guns are legal to own in Canada.  Now, if you use a pellet gun in the commission of a crime, it doesn’t matter whether it looks like a real gun or not;  you’ll still be charged with a firearm offense, and rightly so, and the pellet gun will be seized by police.  Again, rightly so.

But what about when there is no crime committed?  That was what got my hackles up about this case.  From the information I could find online there was no criminal act, hence no justification for seizing the private property of a citizen.

According to Lake Country RCMP Detachment Commander Sgt. Scott Rempel there is more to the story than was reported in the press, even if it did take him over 2 months to respond to my letter.

Please leave me your thoughts on Sgt. Rempel’s response at the bottom of this article.


If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

August 3, 2012

Steven Boyd and Karen Bursey are the latest victims of Bureaucrat’s Rule #1


Anyone hanging out here for any length of time will already be familiar with Bureaucrat’s Rule #1, but for the benefit of any newcomers, here it is in all its repulsive glory:

Bureaucrat’s Rule #1:  The Rules are More Important than People

As you can see, it’s quite a simple rule and it is gleefully used the world over by tyrannical bureaucrats who love nothing more than crushing mere citizens under the weight of their ever-more-oppressive rules.

Steven Boyd and Karen Bursey bought some property in Conception Bay South, Newfoundland.  They proceeded to build their dream home and things were going fine until they discovered they had violated one of Conception Bay South’s many rules about how you can build on your own land.

The town bylaw says the home must be 1.5 metres from the property line.  They had an exemption of up to 1.35 metres by the town council.  Their home is 1.26 metres from that property line.

The problem was discovered after the foundation was poured, and was compounded by the shape of their property, located in a cul de sac.  The property lines are curved, not straight.

As other commentators have said, that’s about the length of a single poker card.

Hardly seems worth forcing someone to tear down their home, does it?

Mindless automaton of the State: Conception Bay South Mayor Woodrow French

Only if you’re a mindless automaton of the State whose life purpose is living by Bureaucrat’s Rule #1.  In this case the mindless automaton of the State has a name: Conception Bay South Mayor Woodrow French.

It’s not about an inch, it’s not about two inches, it’s not about four inches, seven inches,” French said.

It’s about the policies of the town and where buildings have to be located within the town.”

“We have rules and regulations in place, and everybody has to follow those rules and regulations,” French said.

Ah yes… The Rules are More Important than People.


If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

August 2, 2012

Western Wheat Farmers finally get a taste of freedom from the oppression of the Canadian Wheat Board

Can you imagine starting a business, creating a product and then being sent to jail for the “crime” of selling that product to whoever you wanted?  This sounds absurd, doesn’t it?  Of course, yet this was the reality for farmers in Western Canada for the past 70 years.

The Canadian Wheat Board made it a crime for a farmer to sell the fruits of his labour, namely the wheat he grew on his own land, to anyone but the Wheat Board.  What’s even more grotesque is that this law applied ONLY to farmers west of the Ontario/Manitoba border.  If you farmed in Ontario or Quebec, for example, you could sell your wheat to anyone you wanted.

By any standard imaginable, this is wrong, yet the Wheat Board fought long and hard to keep their monopoly on the fruits of Western labour in place.

Here is a brief explanation of the problem and the hypocrisy of the system, written by

Freedom is not something that should differ from one province to the next.  When it comes to wheat and barley it differs vastly.  

Eastern farmers, millers and bakers can buy, sell, trade and export to whomever they please.

Western farmers, millers and bakers are imprisoned by the Federal Government, the Canadian Wheat Board and their bureaucrats.

The difference is not in legislation, but in policy.

The Canadian Wheat Board Act includes all of Canada.  The difference is in the way it operates.  When an Eastern farmer or processor wants to buy, sell, trade or export, they simply call 1-800-ASK-4CWB and are immediately granted approval.  In some cases our Eastern colleagues do not even apply, but simply but, sell, trade or export to whomever, however, and wherever they see fit, without so much as a call tot he bureaucratic nightmare we call the Canadian Wheat Board.

When a Western farmer tries to carry out the same transaction, they are told that they must sell it to the Canadian Wheat Board.  If you do not follow this demand you will be charged and jailed like twenty plus Western farmers already have.


If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

July 26, 2012

Warren Kinsella is “a fucking idiot” who despises YOUR Rights and Freedoms


Warren Kinsella, touted as a “Liberal badboy“, showed his true colors a week ago on his blog and again last night on Sun TV.

Warren Kinsella despises your Liberty.  Warren Kinsella despises your Charter Rights.  Warren Kinsella believes you have absolutely no right to defend yourself from a violent attacker, especially if you’re using a handgun to do so.

Warren Kinsella despises you, too, if you have the audacity to believe the first line of defense against violent criminals is you, the person actually present when the violent criminal strikes, and not the police.

A week ago the moronic Kinsella wrote the following:

If you don’t favour a ban on private ownership of handguns, you’re a fucking idiot

Obviously Warren Kinsella can’t comprehend the simple truth that criminals don’t obey laws.  That is why, after all, they’re referred to as criminals.

Warren Kinsella can’t comprehend that it’s already illegal for a person to merely point a firearm at another human being, let alone shoot them with one!

Nope, according to Kinsella, a handgun ban will solve all the world’s problems.

Warren Kinsella is a moron.

He naively believes that if we disarm the good people, namely law-abiding citizens, that the bad people, namely violent criminals who kill people in shopping malls and at block parties, will magically behave like decent human beings.

That’s not gonna happen.

Kinsella refuses to acknowledge proven studies like John Lott’s “More Guns, Less Crime”, which proves that firearms in civilian hands makes for a safer society.

He believes Ian Thomson of Port Colbourne, Ontario, should have just stood there like a good little Liberal and dialed 9-1-1 while three masked thugs attempted to kill him by burning his house down around him with Molotov cocktails.

It goes without saying that both Ian Thomson and I believe quite differently, and that it’s Warren Kinsella, not a handgun owner, who is the “fucking moron“.


If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

Go To Top
Get Adobe Flash player