Archive | Liberty RSS feed for this section
May 13, 2016

Catholic Pope Francis Declares that I am a Non-Christian!

Catholic Pope Francis - a World-Class Hypocrite on Guns
Alain Poulin liked this post

The great and hypocritical Catholic Pope Francis just declared that me and millions of other gun-owning folks are not Christians.

Wow.  That’s quite a hypocritical declaration for the Pope to make for a couple of reasons.

First, the Catholic Pope travels the world with an armed security escort.  Not armed with bibles, but with guns.  You know… actual manufactured metal objects that shoot pieces of lead out the front really, really fast.

Remember when he visited America last fall?  His security detail for the duration of that visit had what many called “the largest security operation in U.S. history, reports CBS News correspondent Jeff Pegues.”  And yes, each and every member of that massive security detail carried, you guessed it, a gun.

Second, according to the bible whether or not I am a Christian has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not I own guns.  The Bible, that Holy book that the Pope maybe ought to read a little more closely, makes it quite clear there is one and only one requirement to be a Christian:

Believe that Jesus Christ lived, died and rose again on the Third Day.

Third, Jesus Christ himself made it very clear to Peter that being armed in dangerous times where evildoers would do you harm was important.  So important Jesus made the following statement:

(Luk 22:36)  Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.

His disciples were traveling through dangerous lands with people hostile to both them and Christ.  If they were to fulfill their mission they would be required to defend themselves along the way.  As Mason Wheeler says quite eloquently,

Here, he was trying to explain to them that they would need to be prepared to stay mobile (side note: the word fugitive comes from a Latin root meaning “to flee”): they would need to always have a purse (for money) and a bag (to carry basic supplies) ready, and that a sword (for protection against other men) was to be more important to them than a cloak (for protection against the elements) in the days to come.

Susan Shannon explains it even more clearly on her blog Short Little Rebel:

At this time in Jesus’ ministry, Jews held out great hope that Jesus was indeed the Messiah who would literally gather an army and miraculously throw off the Roman rule. Therefore, when Jesus sent them out into the cities, he knew they would be welcomed with open homes, food, drink and would be treated very well by the People. They didn’t need a purse (money) or a sword for protection.

The Jews felt this way up until the Passover time. But Jesus knew what would happen to all their glee when he was arrested and when he would ‘disappoint’ them by not fighting back. Even today, the Jews believe that the Messiah will return but he will be a literal KING with wealth and a powerful army. Jesus’ ‘weakness’ is what makes him false in their eyes. They would suddenly think he was nothing more than a deceiver who had gotten their hopes so high only to realize that he had duped them. They would think, based on their earlier visions of what a Messiah would look like and be like, that he was only a man. And a highly flawed man at that. A false, horribly blasphemous messiah that deserved death.

Therefore, Jesus knew they would no longer be welcomed into anyone’s home or city. No one would offer them a home, food, drink- nor would they be kind. In fact, Jesus knew that they would be violently attacked for continuing to spread his ‘blasphemous’ message. That he was the Son of God. Therefore, they would indeed need money, along with a bag for their blankets & supplies- and a sword for protection.

But since the hypocritical Pope brought up the issue of guns let’s examine that for just a moment, for that’s all it will take to shine the light of hypocrisy on the Holy See.

First, an excerpt of the news report where the Pope condemns everyone who does not agree with him.

People who manufacture weapons or invest in weapons industries are hypocrites if they call themselves Christian, Pope Francis said on Sunday. Francis issued his toughest condemnation to date of the weapons industry at a rally of thousands of young people at the end of the first day of his trip to the Italian city of Turin.

“If you trust only men you have lost,” he told the young people in a long, rambling talk about war, trust and politics after putting aside his prepared address.

“It makes me think of … people, managers, businessmen who call themselves Christian and they manufacture weapons. That leads to a bit a distrust, doesn’t it?” he said to applause.

He also criticized those who invest in weapons industries, saying “duplicity is the currency of today … they say one thing and do another.”

Hmm…  so those armed bodyguards you travel the world surrounded by… they’re just for show, right?

Not even close to right.  The Vatican has its very own security service, the Gendarmerie Corps of Vatican City State, whose primary duty is to protect the Pope and the Vatican City State.  The Pontifical Swiss Guard are a military unit which protects the Pope using both unarmed combat techniques and small arms.   They must also be Catholic with Swiss citizenship and an honourable discharge from the Swiss military.

Soldiers, in other words, with guns.  Really good guns. Specifically these guns:

  • Sig P220 pistol
  • Glock 19 pistol
  • Steyr TMP machine pistol
  • Heckler and Koch MP5 machine pistol
  • Heckler and Koch MP7 machine pistol, and
  • the Sig 550 battle rifle

But like all good hypocrites, guns are good only when they are used to protect the “special people” like the Pope or perhaps Hollywood celebrities, right?  Important people.

We mere citizens? We’re not Christians if we dare own a gun! So says the hypocrite with 135 trained and armed soldiers to protect him.

Perhaps the Hypocrite Pope can disband his precious elite soldier unit and melt down all their guns before telling me who is and is not a Christian.

Oh, and read that darned Bible he waves around so much.  There’s some really good stuff in there if you’re just willing to read it, Mr. Pope!

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

March 11, 2015

BATF Backpedals from M855 .233 Calibre Ammunition Ban

BATF-Bans-M855-Ammo-PFTR
Ryan Steacy, Robert Bailey liked this post

M855-AmmunitionM855 ammunition is .223 calibre “green tip” ammunition most often used with AR-15 rifles. It is also used in some AR-15-style handguns: expensive and large handguns.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms issued a proposal to ban this specific type of ammunition on February 13, 2015, claiming AR-15-type handguns are a “significant threat” to law enforcement officers.

That’s great, except not a single law enforcement officer killed in the last 38 years was shot by a handgun capable of firing the M855 cartridge. So says the FBI, which most would have to agree is a credible source on firearm deaths and what guns were used.

Lawrence Keane, senior vice president and general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, said:

“All rifle ammo made with lead ammo is able to penetrate a soft body ‘vest’ because of the high velocity of rifle rounds, so banning M855 does not advance law officer safety. No police officer has ever been shot and killed with a so-called ‘armor piercing’ bullet fired from a handgun that penetrated a vest.”

The White House felt, at least as late as March 2nd, that banning M855 ammunition was a great idea. That’s the day White House press secretary Josh Earnest said,

“We are looking at additional ways to protect our brave men and women in law enforcement, and believe that this process is valuable for that reason alone. This seems to be an area where everyone should agree that if there are armor-piercing bullets available that can fit into easily concealed weapons, that it puts our law enforcement at considerably more risk.”

So while the White House backs the proposed BATF ban on M855 ammunition and the press screeches ever louder along with them, how come the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms suddenly and without warning reversed course?

They are now no longer banning the most popular ammunition for the AR-15 rifle, citing any concerns about such a ban to a “publication error”.

The BATF issued a press release about this “publication error” on their website, saying:

ATF_logoNOTICE OF PUBLISHING ERROR

On Feb. 13, 2015, ATF released for public comment a proposed framework to guide its determination on what ammunition is “primarily intended for sporting purposes” for purposes of granting exemptions to the Gun Control Act’s prohibition on armor piecing ammunition.

The posted framework is only a proposal, posted for the purpose of receiving public comment, and no final determinations have been made.

Media reports have noted that the 2014 ATF Regulation Guide published online does not contain a listing of the exemptions for armor piercing ammunition, and conclude that the absence of this listing indicates these exemptions have been rescinded. This is not the case.

Please be advised that ATF has not rescinded any armor piercing ammunition exemption, and the fact they are not listed in the 2014 online edition of the regulations was an error which has no legal impact on the validity of the exemptions. The existing exemptions for armor piercing ammunition, which apply to 5.56 mm (.223) SS 109 and M855 projectiles (identified by a green coating on the projectile tip), and the U.S .30 – 06 M2AP projectile (identified by a black coating on the projectile tip), remain in effect.

The listing of Armor Piercing Ammunition exemptions can be found in the 2005 ATF Regulation Guide on page 166, which is posted here.

The 2014 Regulation Guide will be corrected in PDF format to include the listing of armor piercing ammunition exemptions and posted shortly.

The e-book/iBook version of the Regulation Guide will be corrected in the near future.

ATF apologizes for any confusion caused by this publishing error.

Uh huh.

This looks far more like a trial balloon to see if they could get the ban through quickly and easily than it does a “publishing error”.

Mounting opposition from gun owners and escalating political activism made it clear banning M855 .223 ammunition simply wasn’t going to fly.

Vigilance rewarded, as it should be.

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

March 5, 2015

Putting Our Money Where Our Conservative Mouths Are

Support-TheRebel.media-440
Attila Vaski liked this post

With the fall of Sun News Network Canadian conservatives lost the one friend they had on television. The only Canadian voice of liberty was lost… silenced because we Canadian conservatives failed when it counted most.

There is nothing we can do about that failure. Nothing we do today will bring back the Sun News Network. It’s done.  It is gone forever.

There is, however, something we can do to support the only known option to build something from the ashes of that failure, TheRebel.Media.

Ezra Levant has teamed up with fellow Sun alumni Brian Lilley, Michael Coren, Marissa Semkiw and John Robson to create TheRebel.Media, a new voice for conservatives.

Ezra and his team have managed, in just a few short weeks, to garner financial support for all the audio, video and computer equipment they need and even for have funding for social media marketing.

But what about the four individuals who do all the heavy lifting behind the scenes?  What about those four brave young people who today, right this very minute, are gambling their future on us, Canadian conservatives?

These four individuals remain almost entirely unfunded.

To me that says a lot, not about Ezra’s fundraising efforts, but about us, his supporters.

We’re willing to give tens of thousands of our hard-earned dollars to buy all the stuff they could possibly want, but we aren’t willing to support the people who actually do the work.

That’s just plain wrong.

If you feel I like I do, that is wrong, please follow the links below to financially support the individuals who support Ezra, Brian, Michael, Marissa and John so they can do what they do best: educate us and our fellow Canadians.

There comes a time when a person must simply do what is right; put our money where our loud mouths are, and be among those precious few who matter.

I believe that time has arrived.

If we want a truly conservative voice in Canadian media then we must each determine what that is worth to us.  We can’t rely on someone else to pay our way like we did with Sun News Network.  This time we must each pay our own way.

Me? I’ve already sent my check for $1,000.  I will be sending more shortly, as well, specifically tagged to support these four individuals.

Ezra and the rest of the on-camera talent already have a lot of options for making money.  These four brave individuals have bet their futures on both Ezra’s team and on us… conservative Canadians.

I think they’ve made a great bet and one that will pay off for them both now and in the future, and I’m willing to back that bet with cold, hard cash.

Will you join me?

Click on each of the four links below and contribute what you can to financially support each of these brave and talented individuals.

Hannah Vanderkooy

 

Jon Egier

 

Amanda Achtman

 

  Martin Gardiner

 

 

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

December 6, 2014

Gamil Gharbi Day – Because blaming the millions of men who didn’t kill anyone is always in fashion!

Happy-Gamil-Gharbi-Day-PFTR

Happy-Gamil-Gharbi-Day-PFTR

Canada’s annual Man-Hating Festival is well underway, instigated and celebrated by such sharp visionaries and illustrious luminaries as Windy Wendy Cukier and Lying Heidi “I Was There” Rathjen. (Gamil Gharbi was never anywhere near her but Heidi Rathjen refuses to let that pesky little truth get in her way!)

The cause of “gun control” will never fade because these allegedly smart women refuse to accept one simple fact: it is human beings who kill each other.

Guns are merely one of many tools used to commit murder.

By refusing to face that fundamental truth “gun control” advocates remove personal responsibility from the equation and effectively reduce our society to one of little children who don’t know right from wrong; children who are transformed into mass murderers simply because a firearm is in the house unless Mommy and the Almighty Nanny State gets rid of the guns.

Preposterous?

Absolutely, but that doesn’t stop these people from spinning their yarns to anyone who will listen, usually others with an equal or higher stake in reducing society to irresponsible children who must be “managed“.

Governments love “gun control” for equal and opposite reasons: they hate guns in the hands of “mere citizens” and love control over every aspect of our lives.

Until we teach our children about personal responsibility again and, more importantly, hold murderous criminals accountable for their actions, nothing will change.

Yours in Liberty,

my-signature-04

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

November 16, 2014

Why does my Doctor want to know if I own Firearms?

Why-does-my-Doctor-want-to-know-if-I-own-guns-TLG
Ryan Steacy liked this post

Why-does-my-Doctor-want-to-know-if-I-own-guns-TLG

Why does my family physician want to know if I own Firearms before treating me for [insert medical issue here]?

The only doctor who will ask you about gun ownership before treating you is a doctor who hates guns. Any doctor who hunts or target shoots or believes in your Right to Self-Defense isn’t going to ask the question. He won’t care. It’s only anti-gun doctors who believe you must abdicate your Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms before he or she will treat you.

There is a single reason for medical practitioners demanding to know if you own firearms before treating you. It’s got nothing to do with medicine and everything to do with politics. Their politics, not yours.

It’s obscene, but that’s the reality. The problem is so bad that two states, Florida and Missouri, have passed a law against the practice, effectively a gag order against doctors prying into that particular area of a patient’s life.

The practice comes out of the Center for Disease Control’s decision that guns are a disease and they must treat ownership of them as a disease.

President Obama, in his gun violence a “public health crisis” rhetoric, announced in 2013 he would fund the Center for Disease Control to “study the issue“, or in layman’s terms, look at ways of stripping people of guns based on a medical model. He also rescinded the 1995 prohibition on using federal tax dollars to advocate and/or promote “gun control”.

“While year after year, those who oppose even modest gun-safety measures have threatened to defund scientific or medical research into the causes of gun violence, I will direct the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to go ahead and study the best ways to reduce it.”

Daniel Webster, director of the Center for Gun Policy and Research, backed Obama’s anti-gun plans.

“I agree that the CDC should be free to fund high-quality research into the causes and solutions to gun violence, one of the leading causes of premature mortality in the U.S. that affects not only deaths and injuries, but mental health as well.”

The CDC ought to stick to matters of medicine and stay out of social policy. As Emily Miller of the Washington Times noted in her January 2013 column, “Tax Dollars for Gun Control“,

By calling gun violence a “public health crisis” on Wednesday, Mr. Obama echoed Mr. Clinton’s model. It’s a move that could cost lives, as shifting funding away from fighting disease creates severely misplaced priorities. In 2010, 780,213 Americans died from cardiovascular disease and 574,743 from cancer, compared with 11,078 firearm homicides.

Under the Bush administration, the CDC already conducted a two-year independent study of the laws, including bans on specified firearms or ammunition; gun registration; concealed-weapon carry; and zero-tolerance for firearms in schools. The scientists concluded in 2003 that there was “insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.”

The notion that suicidal people denied access to firearms will not kill themselves, statistics on both sides of the border show that to be false.

Then in 1992, writing in another New England Journal of Medicine piece, Kellermann cited an American Journal of Psychiatry study to back up a claim that “limiting access to firearms could prevent many suicides.” Instead, that study really concluded that suicidal people who don’t have guns find other ways to kill themselves.

In Canada as in the United States, while anti-gun forces triumphantly crowed that suicides by gun were down (correct, they were), those same anti-gun forces refused to acknowledge that suicides by hanging grew exponentially for the same time period, and were now higher than the number of suicides by gun they said were “prevented”.

People didn’t stop killing themselves, they simply chose a different method.

To put an end to the practice of harassing patients about gun ownership, Florida passed the “Florida Firearm Owners Privacy Act (FOPA)” which prohibits doctors from asking their patients if they own or possess firearms.

Anti-gun doctors and their associations, like the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) to name but two, were up in arms over the legislation, claiming it violated their First Amendment rights.

Doctors claimed that FOPA “will denigrate the practice of medicine” by preventing physicians from “communicating freely with their patients on issues relating to the ownership and possession of firearms.”

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), known for the passionate love of firearms (not!), predictably wrote in their brief to the court,

“there is no disagreement within the medical community that providing patients with information about firearm safety is a valid aspect of preventative care and thus beneficial to public health.”

Utter crap, of course, but that is irrelevant. The ACLU, AMA and AAP believe civilians should be disarmed, and will say pretty much anything to make that a reality.

Fortunately the courts disagree with such nonsense and the 11th Circuit Court specifically upheld Florida’s Firearm Owner’s Privacy Act in Wollschlaeger v. Governor of Florida.

The essence of the Act is simple: medical practitioners should not record information or inquire about patients’ firearm-ownership status when doing so is not necessary to providing the patient with good medical care. The Act’s harassment and discrimination provisions serve to reinforce these prohibitions.

As suggested by the complaints the Florida legislature received prior to passage of the Act, patients are aware that their answers to physicians’ inquiries will be entered into their medical record, and may fear that their record will be shared with third parties, including, for example, government bureaucrats.

We need not speculate as to the reasons a patient may have for objecting to the sharing of his or her firearm-ownership status, but we note that a patient might be concerned about disclosing to a physician information regarding any number of private topics when such information is not relevant to his or her medical care for similar reasons. For example, a patient may not wish to disclose his or her religious or political affiliations, sexual preferences, or bank account balance to a physician.

The Act merely circumscribes the unnecessary collection of patient information on one of many potential sensitive topics. It does so as a means of protecting a patient’s ability to receive effective medical treatment without compromising the patient’s privacy with regard to matters unrelated to healthcare.

Nothing in Florida law prevents or prohibits doctors from expressing their views on firearms or firearm ownership. Their First Amendment Rights are not infringed, but their ability to violate the Privacy Rights of their patients most certainly is.

As the National Rifle Association stated in their brief to the court in Wollschlaeger v. Governor of Florida,

“The Firearm Owners’ Privacy Act is another reasonable regulation of the medical practice. It exhorts doctors to stick to practicing medicine when examining patients, rather than pushing their own political agendas, and it protects patients from doctors who refuse to do so.”

Precisely.

Firearm ownership is not a disease, contrary to the irrational believes of some in the Center for Disease Control, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics.

These groups should stick to medicine and stay out of politics.

The American Civil Liberties Union ought to protect our rights, not violate them whenever it suits their political agenda.

 

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

November 14, 2014

The Only Entitlement I Expect From My Government is FREEDOM

Canadian-Flag-PFTR
Bruce Akimoya Mills liked this post

The-Only-Entitlement-I-Expect-From-My-Government-is-FREEDOM-PFTR

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

July 28, 2014

Prince Edward Island Chief Firearms Officer Vivian Hayward is a Liar

Prince-Edward-Island-Chief-Firearms-Officer-Vivian-Hayward-is-a-Liar-PFTR

Prince-Edward-Island-Chief-Firearms-Officer-Vivian-Hayward-is-a-LiarPrince Edward Island Chief Firearms Officer Vivian Hayward, (center with her finger on the trigger) is nothing if not a fear-mongering liar.

That’s right. Vivian Hayward is a liar.

Unhappy with Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney’s announcement that provincial Chief Firearms Officers are about to have their wings severely clipped, Vivian Hayward decided the best defence was a fabricated fear-mongering offense.

Stripping down the bloated firearms bureaucracy by combining firearms licenses and Authorizations to Transport restricted firearms is logical and something rational Canadians have wanted for over a decade.

If an individual is deemed safe to own restricted firearms (handguns) there is no rational reason to think they cannot be trusted to take those firearms to and from shooting ranges, gunsmiths and border crossings responsibly.

It’s is simply the desire of Chief Firearms Officers like the lying Vivian Hayward to micro-manage every move of law-abiding Canadians that keeps this wasteful system in place.

Nothing in Minister Blaney’s announcement leads to open or concealed carry, but that didn’t stop Vivian Hayward from spouting the following gibberish to anyone who would listen.

“(It’s) just basically one step away from the U.S.-style having the gun on their hip authorization to carry, which people in this country don’t have.”

That is simply not true.

A spoken statement that is untrue is commonly called a lie.

The common name for a person telling lies is a liar.

That describes Vivian Hayward perfectly, especially in light of the following statement.

“You would never be able to convict somebody and say, ‘What are you doing at this shopping mall with a restricted firearm in your vehicle?’ It would no longer be an unauthorized place because they would no longer have an ATT. I see huge implications for the police.”

What makes this moron think the current requirement for firearms to be transported to and from ranges, gunsmiths and border crossings to be as direct a route as possible? Even current regulations do not prevent a person from stopping for coffee when going to or from the range, or even (gasp!) stop at a shopping mall to buy hearing protection before going to the shooting range.

A spokesperson for Public Safety Canada said Friday all safe transport and storage requirements will continue to apply “…including that firearms must be transported to an authorized location such as a shooting club, and the firearms owner must take the most direct route,” said Jean Paul Duval of Public Safety Canada in an e-mail to The Guardian.

Vivian Hayward’s insistence on harassing law-abiding firearm owners is clear.

She takes great pride in manufacturing criminals out of we mere citizens and is distressed her ability to do that will be severely curtailed once the proposed legislation passes.

This lying wench ought to quit right now before she embarrasses herself and the RCMP even further. If she refuses to resign she should be fired for incompetence.

And yes, that is the Chief Firearms Officer’s finger on the trigger. Just like the rest of her staff.

This is who is in charge of enforcing firearm law in Prince Edward Island?

God help us all.

Prince-Edward-Island-Chief-Firearms-Officer-Vivian-Hayward-is-a-Liar-PFTR

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

June 24, 2014

Humane Society of the United States attempting to ban “traditional ammunition”

Humane-Society-of-United-States-Hates-Hunters-PFTR

Humane-Society-of-United-States-Hates-Hunters-PFTR

The Human Society of the United States (HSUS) and other anti-hunting groups filed a petition with the Interior Department demanding that hunting on public lands with “traditional ammunition” be banned.

That would strip over 1/5 of the total land area of the United States from hunters.

“We have intentionally chosen to concentrate first on banning the use of all lead ammunition for hunting in California and pursuing a ban on federal lands owned by the Department of Interior in order to build momentum for the campaign and to spur change within the various ammunition manufacturers and state wildlife agencies.”

What most Americans don’t understand is that while it has a catchy name, the Human Society of the United States has no interest in saving animals at your local animal shelter.

Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt issued a consumer warning after HSUS sought donations in the wake of last year’s Moore tornadoes. HSUS misled donors, giving them the impression their donations would go to local animal shelters when in fact they did not.

The Center for Consumer Freedom issued a press release stating:

The Humane Society of the United States deceives donors with tear-jerking and manipulative images of dogs and cats, and then funnels the money to push a radical animal liberation agenda aimed at attacking farmers.

Despite The Humane Society of the United States deceiving donors into believing they support animal welfare efforts with their contributions, only 1 percent of HSUS’ annual budget goes to local animal shelters.

Where does the other 99% go? To radical anti-hunting efforts, among other so-called “causes”.

It is no secret that Wayne Pacelle, the rabid anti-hunter who runs HSUS, despises hunting. He’s made public statements to that effect repeatedly in the past. Here are just two examples of his hatred for hunting and hunters.

“If we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would.” (The Kingman Daily Miner, 30 December 1991).

“We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States. We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state.” (Full Cry Magazine, 1 October 1990).

The current effort attacks “traditional ammunition”, even though there is no scientific proof that lead is a problem. Anyone looking at the data rationally (i.e. without a preconceived outcome) knows that lead shot, even in marshland, causes very little problems.

Why?

Lead is heavier than anything else in the marsh. It sinks into the mud and disappears. If that wasn’t true our wetlands would be vast expanses of lead shot.  They are not.

Claiming that lead bullets used in hunting big game is in any way a risk to animal populations is simply ridiculous, yet that isn’t stopping Pacelle and HSUS from lobbying hard for banning what he labels “traditional ammunition”.

Hunters who believe Pacelle and his ilk will be satisfied if we simply use a different type of ammunition aren’t paying attention.

“We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States. We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state.” (Full Cry Magazine, 1 October 1990).

The stark reality is that Pacelle will never be satisfied with a simple “ammunition change” to meet whatever junk science parameters he used in his petition. He will only be satisfied when hunting is outlawed entirely.

What morons like Wayne Pacelle fail to comprehend is the scientifically proven fact that hunting is part of a sound wildlife management system. It is the ONLY way to ensure healthy populations of deer and other prey animals can thrive.

Overpopulation of a species kills that species; a fact proven repeatedly in North America.

As the Michigan Wildlife Conservancy says in their series titled “When There Are Too Many Deer”,

Deer have demonstrated the capacity to eat themselves out of house and home.

The Noble Foundation, a nonprofit advocating for agricultural productivity says

“The only relatively efficient means to manage deer herd numbers other than habitat modification is through managing hunter harvest (i.e., contemporary predation).”

Wayne Pacelle and The Human Society of the United States isn’t interested in deer. They aren’t interested in keeping deer populations healthy. Pacelle and HSUS simply oppose anyone hunting to feed their family because they insist it is “inhumane”.

Feeding your family is not inhumane. Feeding your family wild game is the best possible source of chemical-free meat.

But Wayne Pacelle doesn’t care about your family, either.

No, Wayne Pacelle hopes to accomplish through regulation what he cannot accomplish through legislation: the backdoor banning of hunting.

Selling ignorant politicians on the notion hunters will not “compromise” on lead bullets is a straw man. Hunters and gun owners have compromised endlessly. What we will NOT do is pander to someone’s agenda when they have no actual science to back up their bogus claims.

“Traditional ammunition” is not the problem. It never was. It’s simply the latest catchphrase in the war on hunting; an effort to pain us as unreasonable when the opposite is true.

Hunters and hunter organizations are the primary, indeed almost the only, driving forces behind habitat and animal conservation.

The reason is simple. It’s in our own best interests to ensure a healthy habitat as that ensures healthy animals to harvest and feed our families.

But Wayne Pacelle would paint those conservation efforts as “inhumane”.

I would suggest Wayne Pacelle is, at best disingenuous, at worst a flat-out liar willing to say anything to get his way.

That’s not the type of person who should set public policy.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation made an excellent point in their article “Hunting on Public Lands at Risk”:

The 50 page-petition is littered with junk science and fails to make the case that the use of traditional ammunition is a threat to wildlife populations or to humans that would warrant such a drastic action.

Are we really to believe USUS finds hunting acceptable just so long as hunters use alternative ammunition?

Hunters, sportsmen and target shooters aren’t gullible.

We know better than to trust HSUS with setting hunting policy for the entire country. But we can’t assume the Obama Administration’s Interior Department is on our side.

Call Interior Secretary Sally Jewell today at 202-208-3181 and tell her to reject this scientifically baseless petition from HSUS to ban traditional ammunition. Let the Department of the Interior know that requiring the use of alternative, non-lead ammunition, is nothing more than a back-door way to ban hunting by raising the price of participating in an American sporting tradition. Make sure to tell them:

  • There is no sound science to support banning traditional ammunition used by hunters for centuries.
  • Don’t allow the Humane Society and other anti-hunting groups to advance their end game of banning all hunting by banning the use of traditional ammunition for hunting on public lands.
  • There is absolutely no adverse wildlife population impact that warrants such a drastic measure.
  • There is no evidence that consuming game taken with traditional ammunition poses a human health to hunters and their family.
  • Hunters are the original conservationists.  Excise taxes (11%) raised from the sale of traditional ammunition the HSUS and others unfairly demonize is a primary source of wildlife conservation funding. Banning traditional ammunition will harm the very animals HSUS claims to care about.

Call your officials today:

DOI Office of Communications: 202-208-6416

DOI Executive Office: 202-208-3181

FWS Public Affairs: 703-358-222

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

June 21, 2014

Kansas State Rep. Jim Howell Stands With Gun Owners. Sort of…

Kansas-Concealed-Carry-PFTR

The mainstream media continues to make a mountain out of a molehill in Kansas, where a new law will take effect July 1 allowing concealed carry permit holders to carry their firearms inside the Kansas Statehouse.

The usual suspects whine incessantly about the dangers of allowing mere citizens to carry firearms but Rep. Jim Howell made it very clear where he stands, and it’s not with the whining ninnies.

“I’m not worried about the guys with concealed carry licenses. I’ve never been worried about them. The ones we need to worry about are the guys who are not licensed, who are concealing their firearm for some reason, and would walk in there apparently with some sinister intent.”

While I disagree that law-abiding American citizens require any form of carry permit (if the Second Amendment was ever obeyed!) if we’re going to pit one American against another it should be the good guys versus the bad guys, not permit holders against non-permit holders.

Howell, like most legislators sadly, only gets it partially correct. He says we need to worry about “the guys who are not licensed, who are concealing their firearm for some reason” and that is garbage.

We need to worry about bad guys with guns, period. It matters not whether they have permission slips from The Almighty State.

It matters whether they have, as Howell correctly says, “some sinister intent.”

Kansas Capitol Police, naturally, are against we mere citizens being armed on “their turf” but that’s just territorial urination. They’ve had free reign until now and there isn’t a bureaucracy on the planet that willingly gives up control. It must be wrested from them inch by stupid inch.

We always felt the building is safe and our concern would be if we had an active shooter, that other law enforcement agencies that might come to the building to help out, they won’t know who the concealed carry people are. If they saw them with a handgun, they mistake them for an active shooter,” Capitol Police spokesperson Officer Steven Crumpler said.

That’s very simple to determine, Officer Crumpler, and this is where the age-old maxim of firearm safety applies.

Make sure of your target and what is beyond.

You never fire a shot until you are positive you have the correct target. If there is an “active shooter” in the building the odds are pretty good it will be obvious to everyone, even law enforcement.

He’ll be the moron shooting all the other people.

The mere fact a person holds a firearm does not mean you shoot. You must be sure of the threat that person poses first. If someone, for example, points their firearm at the moron shooting other people he or she is clearly one of the “good guys” and you leave them alone.

Direct your intentions on the person posing the threat, not the person or persons stopping it.

How’s that for simple?

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

June 19, 2014

Phil Hewkin’s Artwork Nails It to Loony Left

Phil-Hewkin-The-Inconsistencies-of-the-Left-PFTR
Dennis Florian liked this post

Phil Hewkin is an artist and a gun owner.  He believes, as I do, that owning private property should not land you in prison, nor should it cost you your life savings or your family home.  All three of those things happened to Ontario gunsmith Bruce Montague.  Well, to be precise, the last of the three, the theft of the Montague family home using Ontario’s Proceeds of Crime Act, is not yet completed.

Now that the federal government is done stripping Bruce Montague and his wife of their life savings in the form of a firearm and ammunition collection, the Ontario government will now proceed with their absurd claim that the Montague family somehow benefited financially from Bruce Montague’s act of civil disobedience.

We in the west will tolerate any amount of insanity from radical muslims, yet when a single Canadian gun owner uses civil disobedience to protest an atrocious law he is branded a terrorist, tossed in prison and stripped of his worldly possessions.

Does that sound reasonable and rational?

Only if you’re a loony lefty who despises the Rights and Freedoms we are born with…

Inconsistencies-Of-The-Left

Image Courtesy of Phil Hewkin. Used with permission.

 

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

June 18, 2014

Donna Montague Speaks Out on Criminal Case Against Her Husband

Bruce-Montague-Court-Ruling
Robert Bailey liked this post

Bruce-Montague-Court-Ruling

My name is Donna Montague. I am married to former Ontario gunsmith Bruce Montague.

I have had Enough!

I am thoroughly disgusted!

It is bad enough that the news media reports inflammatory positions  about Bruce without verifying their data ….. but the “JUDICIARY” is  doing it too.

Now that the trial is over I can speak.

The search of our home:

  • First off, there was no search warrant for the September 11, 2004 raid  on my home. To this day I have not seen a search warrant for this raid.
  • The dynamite we had in the freezer was legal and all charges related  to it were dropped. The police reported the dynamite to prejudice the  public.
  • There were NO sawed off shotguns.
  • Next, 20,000 rounds is not a lot. Police officers testified that they  and target shooters shoot 5,000-10,000 rounds a year. One order from a  local police department is for 11,000 rounds for one event. A retailer  has to supply to their customers.
  • Next, the full auto firearms: Most don’t realize that they are legal  in Canada. Bruce’s license for these was burned in protest.
  • Serial Numbers: Bruce did remove serial numbers and was harshly  sentenced for it. Bruce served his sentence.

Bruce’s character:

The charge against Bruce of being a danger to society was found NOT  GUILTY by the jury.

Character witnesses, a crown contracted background check, and even OPP  officers who knew him, when cross-examined testified and stated that  Bruce is an upstanding citizen. Bruce worked on a lot of OPP and local  police firearms and serviced police departments as far away as New  Jersey. At the time of the raid he had a handgun form a Kenora Crown  Attorney and an OPP rifle. Yet Bruce is continually slandered.

I, his wife would not remain by his side for over 35 years, and  through all this, if Bruce was of the character the judiciary is  insinuating. Bruce is a help-your-neighbour kind of guy. I can’t  imagine anyone who knows him saying otherwise.

You know we ran a gunsmithing shop and retailed firearms. We didn’t  have as many firearms as most firearms stores do. Now the government  wish to take what was our small store’s inventory It was not an  arsenal! – it is our life’s savings!

Now, after the criminal portion of our case is over, the Crown wants  to seize our home – paid for with inherited money from my father and  built by our family. This is extreme, overboard and unreasonable!

This game of media defamation is disgusting. You jury members and  those who attended the trial, you know the whole story. You can share  what you learned in the trial. This is spinning out of control – It is  like politicians with their smear campaigns at election time.

Please! Stand Up! Speak! Don’t be silent and let this atrocity continue.

Donna Montague

 

P.S. I have had a lot of response to my letter in the newspaper. People are  asking me how they can help with letter writing. We would appreciate your letters to be cc’d to:

Court of Appeal for Ontario
130 Queen Street West
Toronto, Ontario M5H 2N5

The Honourable Peter Gordon MacKay  (no postage necessary)
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
284 Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H8

Canadian Constitutional Foundation
1830 – 52 Street SE
Suite 240
Calgary, Alberta T2B 1N1

Some points to consider in these letters may be:

  • Taking someone’s life savings for a victimless paper crime when a  1 ½ year prison sentence already seams excessive, is a cruel and  excessively brutal punishment.
  • In light of the lenient sentences that real criminals get, the  courts appear to have an obvious bias against firearms owners.
  • Bruce Montague was a protester!  He was a conscientious objector to Canada firearms legislation. (see an excellent explanation of what this means at PostcardsFromTheRight.com)  He didn’t threaten or hurt anyone.  This  isn’t how we treat protesters!
  • The civil forfeiture legislation was presented as stopping drug  lords from getting rich. The we made no profit from our protest and our house is not an instrument or proceed of crime.  Bruce made nothing, but the government stands to make hundreds of thousands of  dollars.

The Canadian Constitutional Foundation is representing us. You can support their efforts by donating through the Canadian Constitution Foundation website http://theccf.ca/donate/

Thanks,

Donna Montague

http://theccf.ca/articles/excessively-punitive-ruling-make-canadians-nervous/

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

June 15, 2014

Take a Wrong Turn – Go Directly to Jail

Jail-Gun-Owners

Right now Mexico is at the center of a huge controversy over their arrest and imprisonment of U.S. Marine Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi for taking a wrong turn that led him to a border crossing.

The trouble with border crossings is that once you’re on the path you cannot turn around.

The issue at hand is the detention in Mexico of U.S. Marine Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi, 25, who has been in prison since his arrest April 1 after he took a wrong turn and ended up over the border with his guns, which are legal in the United States but not in Mexico.

In the wake of trading 5 terrorists for 1 Army sergeant-turned-Taliban-supporter while leaving U.S. Marine Tahmooressi to rot in a Mexican prison, Obama’s inaction has many upset, and rightfully so.

“We’re proclaiming that the occupant of the White House … no longer speaks for us. The American people will speak for themselves,” John Harrington, president of gun seller Shield Tactical, told WND Friday.

While Obama plays golf a U.S. Marine is imprisoned in Mexico, abandoned by the nation he faithfully serves. It’s no surprise why John Harrington and others dislike the current President. His disdain for America’s service men and women is… distasteful… to be polite.

This border stupidity is not just a Mexico issue, however. The Canadian border is no friendlier to Americans who make a wrong turn and end up at our gates.

Retired U.S. Army sergeant major Louis DiNatale and his wife learned first-hand just how absurd Canada can be when a wrong turn lands a US citizen at a Canadian border crossing.

GPS units are neat toys but they really don’t comprehend how we travel. Ask for the shortest distance and your GPS will happily take you on a wild goose chase you could complete in half the time if you didn’t follow its directions.

Such is the tragic accident that landed Louis DiNatale on Canada’s doorstep. Their GPS directed the couple through Canada as if that was the best way to get from Kentucky to Vermont. When DiNatale finally realized he was headed for the Canadian border it was too late to turn around. There were no off-ramps.

Instead of simply letting DiNatale and his wife turn around and be on their way as the couple requested our faithful servants at the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) decided a much harsher response was necessary.

DiNatale was, you see, the worst kind of American. He is a gun owner.

CBSA agents arrested Louis DiNatale on charges of gun smuggling because he had forgotten one of his pistols was inside the vehicle.  He explained what happened, showed them his reservations in Vermont and his wife corroborated every word he said.

His word clearly isn’t enough despite, as DiNatale says,

“There’s not even a traffic ticket in my background. Why would I come to Canada to bring a small weapon to smuggle in?”

Common sense has no place at national borders. These invisible are far too sensitive to take a retired Army sergeant major’s word. He is a gun owner, and therefore a liar.

Bruce Engel, DiNatale’s lawyer in this case, made perfect sense when he said

They could have done their homework and looked at his background and seen he’s a professional. They could have accepted the word of his wife and released him on his own recognizance.”

Accepting the word of Louis DiNatale, a career military man, is just not the Canadian way. Making an example out of that military man, disgustingly, is the Canadian way.

While U.S. Marine Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi sits in a Mexico prison cell awaiting trial DiNatale is slightly better off. He was eventually able to post bail and return home.

He vows to fight the charges and I’m very glad he is a man dedicated to common sense.

Owning firearms is legal in America.

That Canadians’ sense of nationhood insists we must be disarmed ninnies should not land our American cousins in prison simply for taking a wrong turn with a gun in their vehicle.

Like Canada, Mexico ought to do the right thing and release U.S. Marine Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi.

Then both nations ought to drop the criminal charges against the men who simply took a wrong turn. They had no criminal intent. That is obvious to anyone with half a brain.

Unfortunately that description doesn’t appear to apply to anyone at the Crown Prosecutor’s office handling Retired U.S. Army sergeant major Louis DiNatale’s case.

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

June 7, 2014

BC sends untrained child hunters into the woods. With Guns.

BC-sends-untrained-child-hunters-into-the-woods-PFTR
Laurie Manzer liked this post

BC sends untrained child hunters into the woods with guns. Have they gone mad?

That’s a more appropriate title for the misinformation piece printed in The Province newspaper titled “Seasoned hunter aghast at B.C. government’s move to delay safety training for beginners“.

If all you read was The Province‘s so-called “news report” you would conclude BC dropped all hunter safety training requirements and now happily sent children into the woods with loaded guns, no training and no supervision.

“Kids running wild in the woods with loaded guns!”

Can’t you hear the screams now?

Quoting extremely selectively from the BC Hunting Synopsis the article says this.

“These changes will give youth and other new hunters an opportunity to find out if they enjoy hunting,” Forests and Lands Minister Steve Thomson writes in the government’s Hunting and Trapping Synopsis 2012-14, “before requiring them to go through the time and monetary commitment of taking hunter safety training.”

Langley resident Phil West is identified in the article as “an experienced hunter.”

ARE THEY INSANE?!” he wrote The Province after reading about the policy shift.

Giving a hunting licence to someone with no training or education in the sport and sending them into the forest with a loaded rifle!

Phil West is quoted because his identification as a hunter and his uninformed outrage give Ian Austin’s anti-hunting screed the one thing it lacks: legitimacy.

That Phil West didn’t know what he was talking about is irrelevant. His usefulness was his identification as “hunter“. His uninformed opinion merely a bonus.

The idea he”ll be sharing the woods with untrained kids as young as 10 scares the hell out of him.

It boggles the mind to think that the government values revenue from licences over safety. So next season I guess I’ll be watching my back as well as the wildlife.

Phil West ought to get the facts instead of listening to biased drivel spouted in The Province. There are no kids as young as 10 running around the woods alone with guns.

What alleged reporter Ian Austin failed to include in the screed he passes off as reporting are those pesky little facts that make all the difference.

BC’s government, whatever its faults may be, rightfully views hunters and their commitment to responsible game management as a valuable resource. That is a good thing. A very good thing.

The BC government wants to ensure we have more hunters. That’s also a good thing. The logical way to accomplish that goal is to make it easy for someone to decide if hunting is for them by experiencing it firsthand.

Oh, the horror!

Below is the entire page devoted to the changes in the latest BC Hunting Synopsis, but here are the relevant facts Ian Austin and The Province don’t want you to know, and were pleased to discover hunter Phil West didn’t know either.

  • An acknowledgement of responsibility signed by a parent or guardian is still required for all youth under 18 years of age. The youth licence is issued on behalf of the youth, but held by the parent or guardian.
  • All youth under 18 years of age must be accompanied by an experienced supervising hunter.
  • It [the Initiation Hunting License] is a one-time-only licence and requires that the person be accompanied by an experienced supervising hunter.
  • Accompanying Hunters Are Mentors
  • Both a youth licensed hunter and an initiation licensed hunter are required to be accompanied by an adult licensed hunter.
  • These proposed requirements for an accompanying hunter will be slightly more stringent than previously, however they aim to improve safety, facilitate an ideal learning environment, improve the chances of a successful hunt, and attract more seasoned hunters to mentor the new hunters. They are not intended to create barriers for participants.
  • Numerous studies have shown that it takes a hunter to make a hunter. Most people that become hunters do so under the tutelage of an older relative, usually their father or mother, grandfather or grandmother, or uncle or aunt.
  • The changes aim to increase recreational opportunities for you and others to hunt in BC, to keep hunting affordable for families and to increase hunter recruitment and retention.

Every person learning about hunting under this program MUST be accompanied by an experienced hunter. That experienced hunter is RESPONSIBLE for the individual they take into the woods. That means the experienced hunter MUST teach their charges about safe handling of firearms, game identification and all that goes along with the hunting experience.

Does that sound like Phil West’s nightmare that he will “be sharing the woods with untrained kids as young as 10“?

No, it really doesn’t.

But who cares about facts. All they do is get in the way of a good propaganda piece, don’t they?

For those interested in learning those facts here is the relevant page of BC’s Hunting Synopsis, page 15.

SO, YOU WANT TO HUNT. GREAT IDEA!

British Columbia boasts a greater variety of game species than anywhere else in Canada and many of our opportunities are world class. Hunting is a popular and healthy recreational activity for many in the province.

Some upcoming changes to the hunting licensing program will make it easier and more affordable to start hunting in BC. These changes will give youth and other new hunters an opportunity to find out if they enjoy hunting, and to begin the social and participatory process of actually becoming a hunter, before requiring them to go through the time and monetary commitment of taking hunter safety training – the Conservation Outdoor Recreation Education (CORE) course.

HUNTING LICENCE FOR YOUTH

The $7.00 junior licence currently available for youth aged 10 – 13 will be expanded soon to include youth aged 14 – 17 and will be renamed a “youth licence”. This change will provide youth with the opportunity to try hunting without the requirement to take CORE. An acknowledgement of responsibility signed by a parent or guardian is still required for all youth under 18 years of age. The youth licence is issued on behalf of the youth, but held by the parent or guardian. As always, any youth who wants to take CORE and get their own regular hunting licence and bag limit entitlement can still do so. All youth under 18 years of age must be accompanied by an experienced supervising hunter.

INITIATION HUNTING LICENCE

A new initiation hunting licence is planned to be introduced in the near future. This new licence will allow a person 18 years or older who has never previously held a hunting licence in B.C. to try hunting for a period of time. It is a one-time-only licence and requires that the person be accompanied by an experienced supervising hunter. The cost of the initiation licence is still under review.

ACCOMPANYING HUNTERS ARE MENTORS

Both a youth licensed hunter and an initiation licensed hunter are required to be accompanied by an adult licensed hunter. An accompanying hunter must be a BC resident hunter 18 years of age or older who meets certain qualifications. Persons hunting under the youth licence or initiation licence will not have their own bag limit. Any wildlife killed by a youth hunter or initiation hunter will be included in the bag limit of the accompanying hunter. A maximum number may be set for either youth or initiation hunters, or both, that may be accompanied at the same time by one mentor hunter. These proposed requirements for an accompanying hunter will be slightly more stringent than previously, however they aim to improve safety, facilitate an ideal learning environment, improve the chances of a successful hunt, and attract more seasoned hunters to mentor the new hunters. They are not intended to create barriers for participants.

Numerous studies have shown that it takes a hunter to make a hunter. Most people that become hunters do so under the tutelage of an older relative, usually their father or mother, grandfather or grandmother, or uncle or aunt.

Those that come to hunting outside of a family setting usually do so in a manner that simulates the same path, such as befriending a hunter and becoming their protégé. People that are new to hunting need mentors and advice on how to safely pursue their new interest. Simply going hunting does not make an individual see themselves as a hunter. Becoming a hunter is a protracted learning and social process.

Advice on where to hunt and how to hunt can be difficult to obtain. New hunters need advice on where to hunt both in a general geographic sense and in the sense of being shown what type of habitat and terrain they should investigate for the species they seek.

The actual techniques of hunting must also be learned. Fundamentals of firearms care and use, wilderness survival and orienteering, hunting ethics, basic equipment, first aid and care of game meat must be understood in addition to the various techniques for stalking game.

These matters are covered in mandatory hunter education courses (e.g. CORE), but further study, especially under field conditions, is necessary in order to truly become a hunter. Generally, the acquisition of such skills requires a mentor.

The new initiative related to the licensing of youth and new hunters, including requirements for the accompanying hunter, are still being finalized. The changes aim to increase recreational opportunities for you and others to hunt in BC, to keep hunting affordable for families and to increase hunter recruitment and retention.

The new licences are expected to be available by April 1, 2013. Please check the Ministry website for updates www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/news/

 

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

June 6, 2014

Moncton RCMP Shooting: Is the NFA’s wading into the fray the right thing to do?

NFA-Dancing-on-Monctons-Dead-CopsPFTR

NFA-Dancing-on-Monctons-Dead-CopsPFTR

As most already know, this past Wednesday evening saw 3 RCMP members shot dead, with more wounded.

The entire city of Moncton, put on lockdown until police finally captured their intended target late Thursday, finally resumed more normal operation. Government buildings and schools closed for the manhunt reopened. Residents,prevented from returning to their homes due to police barricades finally made it back to worried loved ones.

The alleged killer, identified as Justin Bourque, is according to the media a “gun nut” which all but guarantees a fresh wave of attacks on Canada’s law-abiding firearm owners.

With that context in place it is valid to question whether the NFA, which bills itself as Canada’s “largest and most effective advocacy organization representing the interests of firearms owners and users“, press release denouncing both the “clearly deranged individual” and Canada’s gun laws was prudent.

It is clear that Canada’s excessive firearms control system has failed again,” they wrote the day after the shootings and before Justin Bourque’s apprehension.

The largest and most effective pro-gun organization in history has one simple rule when mass shootings occur: Say Nothing.

The NRA’s policy of silence in the wake of these tragedies seems both wise and prudent.

The NFA chose the death of 3 RCMP members as a vehicle to complain about Canada’s gun laws.

In doing so they (unwittingly or intentionally?) danced on the graves of the dead for political points. We despise Windy Wendy and her ilk doing that. Now we’ve become her.

Is that really what we want?

Yours in Liberty,

My Signature Red

 

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

June 5, 2014

Bruce Montague’s Response to Forfeiture Order

Bruce-Montague-Statement-on-Court-of-Appeal-Forfeiture-Order-PFTR
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 (http://www.theccf.ca) 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 PostcardsFromTheRight.com, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

June 4, 2014

Gunsmith Bruce Montague, Dr. Henry Morgentaler and Abortion Law

Bruce-Montague-Court-Ruling
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 PostcardsFromTheRight.com, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

May 30, 2014

Why the Flood of Firearm Registration Certificates in My Mailbox?

Registraton-Certificate-PFTR

Registraton-Certificate-PFTR

This past week I my mailbox overflowed with firearm registration certificates for restricted firearms. I found this, to say the least, puzzling, as I’ve had no contact with the Canadian Firearms Centre for ages, nor had I purchased any firearms recently.

After checking the registration certificates against my own restricted firearms I discovered these were not for new guns but for firearms I already own.

Curious as to why the RCMP’s gun registration bureaucrats flooded my mailbox like this I phoned the Canadian Firearms Program on their toll-free number, 1-800-731-4000.

After waiting out their automated recording system a delightfully pleasant woman named Tanya answered my call.

I asked Tanya why they sent me these duplicate registrations.

After a brief silence, Tanya said she was as puzzled as I about the re-issuance of firearm registration certificates. After confirming I was who I said I was, she searched the system but could find no notes explaining this.

Being the curious type I asked if anything had changed with my license.

No, everything is good,” she replied.

We both had a good laugh at this odd situation and after wishing me a good day Tanya hung up.

If you recently received a batch of firearm registration certificates without requesting them please let me know. I’m curious if I’m a one-off situation or if the RCMP is re-issuing registration certificates on a wider scale.

You can reach me using the contact form at http://support.rightsandfreedoms.org/contact-us/.

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

Go To Top
Get Adobe Flash player