Archive | Canada’s Firearms Act RSS feed for this section
July 28, 2014

Prince Edward Island Chief Firearms Officer Vivian Hayward is a Liar


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.


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

June 18, 2014

Donna Montague Speaks Out on Criminal Case Against Her Husband

Robert Bailey liked this post


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  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


Donna Montague

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

June 15, 2014

Take a Wrong Turn – Go Directly to Jail


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, 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?



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, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

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?

May 27, 2014

What Kills More Canadians Each Year – Knives or Guns?

Attila Vaski, Mike Ackermann liked this post


In what mainstream media harpies call a mass stabbing in Calgary last week they unwittingly revealed an interesting fact: knives kill or injure more people annually than any other weapon. Yes, including those much-despised firearms folks like me, and perhaps you, own. Legally and safely, I might add.

Statistics Canada reports knives are used in one third of all homicides and homicide attempts, making it the most-used weapon annually.

I’m not minimizing the deaths of 5 innocent people in Calgary last week. Not for a second. It is a tragedy that Matthew de Grood stabbed 4 men and a woman to death for no reason, and my sincere condolences go out to the families of each one of these slain individuals.

However it’s precisely this type of tragedy legislators, supposedly our employees, use to push new (stupid and useless) legislation upon us.

In what now passes for social conscience, Twitter users called for knife bans and one Calgary knife store owner agreed, citing his support for Canada’s Firearms Act in the process.

Kevin Kent, owner of Knifewear, a Calgary shop that sells handmade Japanese chefs knives, said he supports Canada’s gun restrictions and wouldn’t be opposed to knife regulation “as long as it makes sense.”

Kevin Kent made no friends in the firearms community with that moronic utterance.

It was just such a senseless tragedy as this multiple stabbing in Calgary that ushered in Canada’s gun restrictions. Calls of “as long as it makes sense” fell on deaf ears since government, as always, must be seen to be doing something, even if it’s something useless like tracking and harassing Canada’s most law-abiding citizens.

While it would please me greatly to see Kevin Kent suffer and lose his business under stupid and useless legislation like we law-abiding firearm owners do every day, I do not support a knife registry or a knife ban. Such feel-good government interference doesn’t make any rational sense, just as it made no sense for firearms in 1995.

“I call it moral panic,” said Janne Holmgren, director for the Centre for Criminology and Justice Research at Mount Royal University. “Sometimes fear drives a lot of legislation, unfortunately.”

Very well said.

Most Canadians today believe there were no restrictions at all on firearms before the Liberal Party finally saved us from “gun violence” in 1995 with Canada’s Firearms Act.

That is simply not true. They neither “saved us” nor stopped “gun violence” as the front pages of newspapers herald repeatedly.

The Firearm Acquisition Certificate system in place before Gamil Gharbi’s anti-women tirade cost 14 female engineering students their lives cost far less and was, at a minimum, at least as effective as current legislation on firearms. I would suggest it was far more effective as local police made decisions on firearms acquisition under that system, not bureaucrats staring at computer screens in New Brunswick.

Lest any forget, we’ve registered handguns in Canada since 1934, so the Liberals’ Firearms Act didn’t change a thing for them. Handgun registration hasn’t stopped a single gang member from obtaining and using illegal handguns in 80 years, and it never will.

Criminals don’t obey laws. It’s a maxim legislators ought to have tattooed on their foreheads lest they feel the need to manufacture more criminals out of we law-abiding citizens.

A knife ban will never pass in Canada for the same reason we will never ban cars no matter how many people are killed with them: “Everybody” uses them.

It would be too much of an inconvenience to the sheeple of Canada. Like Hockey Night in Canada and Beer, there are sacred cows in this country.

Driving a vehicle and using knives are two of them, no matter how many people they kill every year.

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

May 20, 2014

Thomas Harding and the Heavy Hand of Surete du Quebec’s Police State Thugs



Thomas Harding, as you may know, is the engineer of the train carrying oil that derailed in Lac Megantic, Quebec, leveling the town with the resulting explosion and fire. From the date of that terrible tragedy Thomas Harding avoided public comment at every turn. He cooperated with police and accident investigators fully and completely.

Through his lawyer he even made it clear if he was charged with a crime he would turn himself in willingly.

Such willingness to face the music, to be accountable for one’s actions in such a horrific case as this shows me Thomas Harding must be a man of great character. Whatever his role in the disaster, his steadfast and unwavering determination to be held accountable for his actions that fateful day is to be respected and admired. Few have such courage.

That is precisely the kind of principled man Surete du Quebec thugs humiliated with their high-profile SWAT takedown on May 12th, 2014, at his home in Farnham, Quebec.

Over-compensating for their incredible lack of humanity and armed with both delusions of grandeur and fully-automatic weapons, Surete du Quebec thugs tossed Thomas Harding, his son and a visitor to the ground before they handcuffed him and hauled him off to jail.

It’s no wonder police get stonewalled by actual criminals when they treat a citizen cooperating fully with investigators this atrociously. What incentive is there when no matter how properly you conduct yourself you are still subjected to a heavy-handed, make that obscene display of police power?

Through the media, Surete du Quebec thugs gave a pathetic rationalization for their appalling behaviour, as though they were actually in the right. They were not.

Claiming Mr. Harding unlawfully possessed firearms and spoke of suicide, they acted.

What they conveniently failed to explain is why, if they truly believed Mr. Harding possessed firearms illegally, did they not obtain a search warrant and remove those firearms instead of leaving them in his possession for months?

Most days I feel pretty good about being a Canadian citizen but, upon reading of the treatment of Thomas Harding at the hand of Surete du Quebec thugs carrying their badges and guns, I must confess today is not one of those days.

I am revolted, seeing police resources abused so callously in the name of “public safety” and “concern” for Mr. Harding.

Concern for a person’s well being isn’t usually expressed by pointing a fully-automatic rifle into his face, handcuffing him and hauling him off to jail for a 10-hour interrogation. At least not by my dictionary, and I hope not yours either.

The most troubling aspect of the very public and theatrical arrest of Thomas Harding is that it wasn’t about Thomas Harding at all. This very public shaming and humiliation, while Thomas Harding was the recipient of this abuse, it was not intended for him.

It was intended for you and me, the mere citizens of Canada.

Step out of line and thugs with badges and guns will do the same to us.

Am I over-reacting? I doubt it.

I’m sure some will not agree, however. If you’re one of those people I would ask you to ask yourself one simple question.

Put yourself in Thomas Harding’s shoes.

After you’ve made it clear to police you will turn yourself in whenever you are asked, is it reasonable for authorities to order a “high-risk takedown” by SWAT instead of simply calling you on the phone and saying, “Hey Mr. Harding, would you please come down to the station so we can process your arrest?

If you answer in the affirmative, then I must seriously question your humanity as I have already questioned that of the badge-wearing thugs of the Surete du Quebec.



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

May 19, 2014

Law-Abiding Firearm Owner Rob Sciuk Responds to Conservative Fundraising Letter

Tony Van Oort, Mike Ackermann liked this post


May 18, 2014

Dear Mr. Walsh,

Thank you for your letter dated April 24th asking why my donations to the Conservative party have stopped after years of being considered one of the Conservative Party’s strongest and most reliable Sustaining Donors.

By way of background, Mr. Walsh, I have a university education, and work in the field of software engineering and firmware development in the Canadian high tech industry.  I read two newspapers daily, one as the antidote to the other in order to avoid editorial bias, and I have an active life with two grown children, a wife and my two dogs.

In other words, I want you to know that I am not now and never have been a single issue voter.  But I am a firearm owner, and very active in hunting and the shooting sports, including the use of restricted firearms in competition, both nationally, and internationally.

Recently, the FRT group of the RCMP prohibited two semi-automatic rifles which had previously been non-restricted, and had presented no public safety issues whatsoever.  Apparently these bureaucratic mandarins are not accountable, even to the Minister himself.

My concerns also extend to Mr. Harper’s promise to repeal the entirety of the Liberal’s Canadian Firearms Act, and his decidedly ill-considered approach to ending only the long gun registry.  We are left with a set of regulations and laws in place which will inevitably lead to the confiscation of each and every firearm in Canada within a generation or so, right under the noses of Parliament, and that was what the Canadian Firearms Act was designed to do from the outset.

Newly introduced sections 91 and 92 of the Criminal Code of Canada make the simple possession of a firearm a criminal offense.  The prior regime required did not require a federal license to continually own firearms, but rather a certificate only to obtain one.  This afforded each and every reasonable public safety measure that is attributed to the license (background checks, training, spousal/parental permissions, letters of recommendation, and a mechanism for revocation).

Now, with the expiration of a license, a mere temporal lapse means the difference between me being declared a criminal, subject to the very same mandatory minimum sentences the CONSERVATIVES adopted, without consideration as to whether the so-called criminal actually committed a crime, or simply was made one by the lapse of paperwork.  The laws that the CONSERVATIVES passed make no distinction.

While the Conservatives have performed admirably in many respects, not the least of which financially, and particularly in the light of the recent global economic downturn, I find myself not as trusting in the Conservative agenda, as I once was.

I am extremely disappointed in the fact that the government has allowed bad laws to stand, and instead offering one temporary amnesty after another to keep erstwhile law-abiding citizens out of jail for the crime of simply owning the firearms that they had for generations.

Literally hundreds of thousands of Canadians are now with lapsed licenses, and face criminal sentences in federal prisons. Enough with the damn amnesties.

Arrest each and every one of them or change the stupid laws!

Indeed Sir, the Conservatives have used responsible shooters badly. We have supported you for years, steadfast and  unswerving in our support, and now you have the absolute gall to ask your strongest segment of support why that support might be wavering, having left us in the cold, and one step away from being declared criminals.

Indeed a mere suspicion results in immediate loss of property and ruinous defense costs in the judicial process, which is for the most part, the punishment.

As for my support, Mr Walsh, it is withheld until such time as the real problem, the firearm law and its pursuant regulations are repaired.

I would expect that the ability for nameless bureaucrats to confiscate my property without recourse or accountability would be eliminated, and their ability to enact such creeping confiscation would end forthwith.

In addition, in keeping with a liberal democracy, Parliamentary oversight would be required before any property would be banned from ownership, and that the right for responsible individuals to retain arms for any legitimate purpose, including self-defense to be recognized and respected.

Until such time, you might consider me to be a former supporter, both financially, and at the polls.

While I regret this turn of events, I have no choice but to take this position, and to widely encourage others to do the same.

Given that I am technically inclined, this is a simple message to disseminate widely, and I’m sure that you will not be surprised to learn that it is an increasingly popular position among the Conservative formerly faithful firearms owners.

We feel that we have been treated badly, and indeed, Sir, we have!


Robert S. Sciuk
Oshawa, Ont.

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

May 14, 2014

Andrew Winchester: The Epitome of Stupid People with Guns



Andrew Winchester is a stupid person.

I call Andrew Winchester a stupid person because only an idiot would believe handing over 47 handguns, all legally purchased and registered to him, to an unlicensed individual wouldn’t have severe consequences. You would think being paid $900 per purchase over and above the cost of the guns and ammunition just might be a clue something is not quite legal.

Not Andrew Winchester.

In order to work for his previous employer, Garda Security, he took the Canadian Firearms Safety Course for both non-restricted and restricted firearms. He passed the course, applied for and was issued a Canadian firearms license.

He then purchased 47 handguns over a 5-month period and re-sold them to a friend of his. His friend did not have a firearms license. Selling 47 handguns to his unlicensed friend is a criminal offense.

The Criminal Code of Canada is quite clear about the transfer of handguns or as the law refers to them, restricted firearms.

Section 23.2 (1) A person may transfer a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm if, at the time of the transfer,
(a) the transferee holds a licence authorizing the transferee to acquire and possess that kind of firearm;
(b) the transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee is not authorized to acquire and possess that kind of firearm;
(c) the transferor informs the Registrar of the transfer;
(d) if the transferee is an individual, the transferor informs a chief firearms officer of the transfer and obtains the authorization of the chief firearms officer for the transfer;
(e) a new registration certificate for the firearm is issued in accordance with this Act; and
(f) the prescribed conditions are met.

As you can see above, Andrew Winchester broke every single part of this section of law.

From the judgment in R. v. Andrew Winchester, 2014 ONSC 2591:

[17] There are a number of aggravating circumstances in this case, most of which are self-evident. First, Mr. Winchester used his firearms licence to purchase and then transfer forty-three handguns to another person, his presumed friend, Nour Marakah. Second, Mr. Winchester transferred these handguns knowing that Mr. Marakah would, in turn, be providing them to another person. It must have at least crossed Mr. Winchester’s mind that these were not guns that were being acquired for lawful or innocent purposes. If that thought did not cross Mr. Winchester’s mind, it ought to have. Third, Mr. Winchester undertook these purchases with an assurance from Mr. Marakah that the firearms would not be traceable back to him. This was yet a further reason that should have caused Mr. Winchester to question what was, in reality, going on. It also should have caused him to rethink his participation in this venture.


It is unfortunate that Andrew Winchesters two sons will be without their father for the next six years (He received 2.5 years credit for time served before his trial), but such is the high price of stupidity.

Mr. Winchester is, however, fortunate Superior Court Justice Ian Nordheimer laughed at Crown’s retarded argument that his lack of a prior criminal record should be viewed as an “aggravating circumstance” at sentencing.

[20] Finally on this point, the Crown submits that another aggravating circumstance is Mr. Winchester’s lack of a criminal record. The Crown’s reasoning is that it was the lack of a criminal record that allowed Mr. Winchester to obtain a firearms licence that in turn allowed him to purchase these handguns. I do not accept that reasoning. It is well-established that the lack of a criminal record is a mitigating factor not an aggravating one. [..] I do not know of any authority, and none was cited to me, that has ever held that in a situation, such as the one here, the lack of a criminal record can be transformed from a positive factor into a negative one.

At the end of the day, as the court judgment makes clear, Andrew Winchester had a very misplaced sense of loyalty and obligation to his high school friend Nour Marakah. That sense of loyalty and obligation cost Andrew Winchester his freedom, his fiance, his job and his sons.

I doubt Andrew Winchester views the $15,000 he received as payment for purchasing the handguns was worth it as he sits in a federal prison cell.

He would be correct.

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

May 13, 2014

Stupid Toronto Star Reporters and Canadian Firearms Law



You can’t stop people from being stupid. You can, as a reporter writing about stupid people, base your story at least in the same universe as reality, if not on the same planet.

Jacques Gallant, a staff reporter for Toronto’s The Star newspaper, clearly doesn’t have a clue what he’s writing about in his article “Handguns Easily Resold to Potential Criminals” when he states:

There are no safeguards in Canadian firearms legislation to prevent people from purchasing a large number of handguns and then illegally transferring them to potential criminals.

Jacques Gallant isn’t much of a researcher either, as it takes all of 10 seconds and a search engine to come up with Section 23.2 of Canada’s Firearms Act, which reads:

Section 23.2 (1) A person may transfer a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm if, at the time of the transfer,
(a) the transferee holds a licence authorizing the transferee to acquire and possess that kind of firearm;
(b) the transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee is not authorized to acquire and possess that kind of firearm;
(c) the transferor informs the Registrar of the transfer;
(d) if the transferee is an individual, the transferor informs a chief firearms officer of the transfer and obtains the authorization of the chief firearms officer for the transfer;
(e) a new registration certificate for the firearm is issued in accordance with this Act; and
(f) the prescribed conditions are met.

The law is quite clear about who may transfer handguns (classed as restricted firearms in Canada) and to whom.

Mr. Gallant is, at best, disingenuous with his assertion. At worst he is intentionally misleading the public, if not outright lying to them.

Mr. Gallant is not really a reporter of this story though, is he? He’s more the manufacturer of a press release meeting The Star‘s anti-gun bias, one shared by the astoundingly ignorant Wendy Cukier, president of the Coalition for Gun Control, whom Gallant quotes favourably.

Of course you could have restrictions on how many firearms someone could purchase, of course you could take advantage of the inspection provisions that already exist but what we’ve seen in recent years is an erosion of the legislation and its enforcement” under the current federal government.

Cukier’s drivel is hogwash, of course, but Windy Wendy never met a firearms fact she wasn’t willing to overlook.

The repeal of the long gun registry had absolutely nothing to do with handguns and she knows it. But why get a little thing like the truth get in the way of some easy PR, right Wendy?

The only thing Mr. Gallant actually gets correct in his article’s opening statement is his assertion there are no limits to how many firearms a person may purchase.

There aren’t, and nor should there be, since every single firearm purchase must be approved by police, specifically the Chief Firearms Officer of each province. In Ontario that is Ontario Provincial Police Superintendent Chris Wyatt.

The case Mr. Gallant writes about is the unbelievably stupid Andrew Winchester, who bought 47 handguns and then resold them illegally to his high school friend, Nour Marakah.

Andrew Winchester passed the Canadian Firearms Safety Course for both non-restricted and restricted firearms. He then applied for and received a Canadian firearms license. This license was issued by Superintendent Chris Wyatt’s office. The same man whose office approved each and every one of the 47 handgun purchase Andrew Winchester made over a 5-month period in 2012.

Now I’m not for a second saying Wyatt’s office did anything wrong in this case. They didn’t.

Prior to approving Andrew Winchester’s firearms license Wyatt’s office is required by law to ensure there is no criminal record for the applicant and to check personal references. Since Mr. Winchester was not a criminal (yet) he passed these tests with flying colors.

The same goes for each one of the handgun purchases. Every time Mr. Winchester purchased one or more handguns his name was run through the system. An updated background check is performed each time a person buys a firearm. If there is a red flag the purchase is not approved.

Until guns purchased by Mr. Winchester showed up at crime scenes there was no reason to suspect anything was amiss. Again, just as it should be if we stand on the principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Andrew Winchester is now serving an 8-year prison sentence for his gross stupidity.

How he thought he could illegally sell handguns legally registered to himself and get away with it simply boggles the mind.

One would think being paid $900 per purchase over and above the cost of the guns and ammunition might be a clue all is not legal. Not Andrew Winchester.

It’s almost as stupid as an [alleged] reporter writing such uninformed drivel as Jacques Gallant does and being paid good money to do so.

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

May 9, 2014

Former NFA President Jim Hinter, aka James Murray, Faces New Criminal Charges


James-Hinter-aka-James-MurrayIt took almost 10 years, but now there is an explanation for former National Firearms Association President Jim Hinter’s disappearance from the world.

Turns out Jim Hinter didn’t disappear at all; he simply decided using his first and last name might cause him problems, given the allegedly criminal nature of his demise from the NFA.

Hinter is currently listed as the president of a media website, NetNewsLedger.

NetNewsLedger is a website based in Thunder Bay, Ontario, where Jim Hinter is listed as “James Murray, Chief Content Officer” as well as “James Murray, President” on their “About NNL” web page.

offers news, information, opinions and positive ideas for Thunder Bay, Ontario“.

NFA-logoWhile nobody from Canada’s National Firearms Association would say it on record, off the record Jim Hinter’s removal from the NFA presidency was shrouded in allegations of fraud. While he never faced criminal charges for those allegations, Jim Hinter left town so fast he forgot to remove one of his cowboy action handguns from of the gun safe at NFA’s Edmonton headquarters.

You may recall back in 2002 he faced a criminal charge of careless use of a firearm after he tried clearing a jammed handgun in his home, sending a bullet through the wall into his neighbour’s apartment. The gun jammed while he was at a shooting range and instead of dealing with the issue there, he took the still-loaded firearm home. After a lengthy trial Hinter was found not guilty of careless use of a firearm in a Calgary courtroom.

The negligent discharge was a black eye for both Jim Hinter and Canada’s National Firearms Association at the time.

Once again Jim Hinter, currently living in Ontario under the alias James Murray, faces firearm-related criminal code charges.

According to the CBC story that revealed Hinter’s whereabouts:

Thunder Bay police have charged a city man with firearms-related offences in connection with the seizure of weapons in September 2012. Police report they were called to an apartment in the 100 block of North Edward St. after a landlord discovered a number of firearms allegedly belonging to a former tenant. Officers seized 23 firearms, including eight handguns and a large quantity of ammunition.

On Tuesday police located and arrested 53-year-old James Murray Hinter as a result of their investigation. Hinter is charged with unsafe storage of six firearms, and unauthorized possession of all 23 of the seized firearms. He has been released from custody on a promise to appear in court on May 27.

We wish Mr. Hinter good luck as he faces this latest round of criminal charges. He appears to be doing good work in the Thunder Bay community and it would be a shame if that work ended with him in a prison cell.



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?

January 6, 2013

Ian Thomson’s Interview with SunTV’s Brian Lilley



The day after Ian Thomson was acquitted of bogus unsafe storage charges in Welland, Ontario, Brian Lilley from the SunTV show Byline interview him. Here is that interview.

If you are able to help Ian Thomson with part of his outstanding $30,000 legal bill for defending himself against charges that should never have been brought in the first place, please send your contributions payable to:

Ed Burlew, In Trust
16 John Street
Thornhill, Ontario L3T 1X8


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

January 4, 2013

Ian Thomson found NOT GUILTY of safe storage charges



January 3, 2012

Ian Thomson of Port Colbourne, Ontario, was found NOT GUILTY by Justice Colvin in a 45-minute decision that finally takes the weight off the man who had the audacity to defend his life from masked men trying to murder him in his home while he slept.

It’s a case that should never happened.

Police should have commended Thomson for his restraint in firing warning shots over the heads of the men who tried to murder him, not arrest him on bogus safe storage charges.

Crown Counsel should have declined to prosecute because it is not in the public interest to proceed with such an asinine case.  Then again, Crown Counsel should have charged the men who tried to kill Ian Thomson with attempted murder too… something they just couldn’t bring themselves to do.

Naturally, when the Crown Counsel’s head is stuffed this far into his own behind, he won’t accept the decision of the court.  Long before the decision came down today, January 3rd, Crown prosecutors made it very clear they would appeal the decision if it didn’t go their way.

I truly do not comprehend the mindset of police and lawyers who would rather see a man dead, burned alive, than defend his life against masked men trying to murderer him.

It makes no sense to me.

Unless, that is,  I accept the fact that police and crown prosecutors, at least in Ontario, do not believe we mere citizens of Canada should be “allowed” to defend our lives in the face of imminent and mortal danger.

It’s fine for them, of course… just not for the rest of us.

The sheer hypocrisy of this is, well, disgusting.

Let me leave you with a few thoughts I wrote almost a year ago in an article titled “Vigilantism vs Self-Defense: Why Bob Rae is a buffoon completely out of touch with reality

…in the early morning hours of August 22, 2010, Port Colborne, Ontario resident Ian Thomson used a legally-owned and registered handgun to fire warning shots over the heads of the three murderous cretins (no relation to our former prime minister) who were attempting to kill him by burning down Mr. Thomson’s home with him inside it.

The police and Crown prosecutors have decided that saving his own life is not acceptable behaviour.  Instead, Crown prosecutors seem to be content that Ian Thomson should have dialed 9-1-1 and then promptly died at the hands of his attackers, like a good little sheeple.

A police officer actually had the gall to say that Thomson was able to retrieve his firearms “too quickly”, therefore he was obviously guilty of the unsafe storage of firearms.

It’s an asinine comment and an even more asinine conclusion to draw.  Ian Thomson’s life was in immediate and imminent danger from three men caught on video cameras screaming death threats and tossing Molotov cocktails at his home.

It was only his ability to retrieve his firearms and fire a couple of warning shots to scare off his would-be murderers that allows Ian Thomson to be alive to suffer the abusive prosecution he is currently facing, not to mention the moronic comments of that policeman and now Bob Rae.

This is beyond absurd.  If an inmate inside a maximum security prison can use a concealed weapon to kill another inmate according the the Supreme Court of Canada (R. v. Kerr, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 371, 2004 SCC 44), then why can’t a man with no criminal record and a legally-owned firearms defend his life against three men actively trying to murder him?

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

October 15, 2012

Mass Hysteria: Government’s Age-Old Boogeyman


Has the world suddenly gone bonkers?

Well, no.

The world seemingly has been afflicted with mass insanity since time immemorial.

Hi-tech toys merely allow the madness to be refined.

Eavesdropping on every telephone conversation, snooping into every e-mail message, cameras and recorders spying on and listening to citizens on every street corner, super-snoop data-mining centers sucking up and storing our every word, thought, move, including bank statements, till receipts and credit and debit card transactions.

All are methods for identifying and disappearing “terrorists”.

But, of course, you aren’t a terrorist…as long as you can “prove it”, which you can’t.

This is called “reverse onus”.

“Presumed innocence until proven guilty” under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is passé. Whereas the upside down “reverse onus” supposedly means “guilty until proven innocent” in governmentese, it actually means “GUILTY until proven GUILTY” because gun owners and terrorists, of which you are tagged one or the other, are not going to be found “innocent”.

The lunacy knows no boundaries.

Toll-free hot lines promote anonymous tips for every real or imagined slight.

Unidentified squealers are protected while the unknowing victim of the allegation is subjected to search, seizure and deprivation of liberty, all the while never able to know the identity of his accuser, let alone confront them in a court of law.

This civil-persecution system that views the accuser as always truthful and the accused as always guilty harkens back to “witch-hunting”.

The first mass witchcraft trials reached fever pitch sometime in the 15th century and crescendoed to mass hysteria between 1550-1650.

Nobody should be horrified that the “witch-hunters” have everybody under suspicion and surveillance in Canada today. The United States created mass hysteria searching for A Red Under Every Bed in the 1940-50s. These tactics also were used during the Nazi Germany and Stalinist eras of the 1930-40s.

Witchcraft trials were an on-again, off-again fad for nearly three centuries before witch burnings finally faded out of favour.

Then, just as today, public health and public safety issues played an integral role in the witch-hunts.

In the wake of the bubonic plague of 1347-49, which medieval Italian writer Giovanni Boccaccio described as so rapid and devastating that the victims often “ate lunch with their friends and dinner with their ancestors in paradise”, rumours were rampant and fingers pointed accusingly at plague-spreading witches.

Forget about the disease-spreading rats and fleas. That would be too logical.

In Nazi Germany, Fuehrer Adolf Hitler convinced his stable of legalized murderers that vermin-carrying Jews were a threat to public health and had to be exterminated.

Today, terrorism is the latest fad setting off mass hysteria, and is used once again as an excuse for government to erode citizens’ rights. They do so under the same shop-worn mantra of “public safety” and “national security”.

Unfortunately, common sense can’t be legislated.

And for some strange reason, the public accepts the “safe” and “secure” premise wholesale, although government’s job is not to keep people safe; it can’t. The government’s job is to uphold the constitution and keep people free.

Sadly, people must be individually scorched by these Draconian laws before they will open their eyes and minds and stand against them.

The very notion of “justice” has been turned on its head. Only a government that fears its people would stoop to implementing programs that protect the identity of the accuser and leave the accused defenseless.

Nobody outside the firearms community paid heed to the gun owners rattling their sabers over a criminal law that blatantly violates Constitutional rights and freedoms no less than 28 times.

And, now, the unlawful provisions prescribed in that trailblazing piece of Liberal Party trash called the Canadian Firearms Act have finally caught up with the rabid non-gun owners alike. Hope you like all the strip searches on the lawns in broad daylight and surprise police raids into your homes without a search warrant while they “come in to look around and take what they want”.

Under a law only a dictator could love, firearms owners can be sent to a federal penitentiary for merely failing to report their address change. Yet countless violent offenders, child molesters and rapists roam the country, free from such “violations” of their civil liberties and whose names never get into the data banks.

They are called “informers” who are motivated by payoffs and perks to give information; it doesn’t matter if the information is correct before the police leap.

Hundreds of firearms owners have had their homes and businesses ransacked without due cause since the Liberals’ Bill C-68 came into effect in 1995. Many others have been thrown into jail cells without provocation. The police use their powers to force the prisoners to give up their guns without having to go to the trouble to apply for a search warrant.

Drivers don’t go to jail when caught operating a vehicle with licenses, registration or insurance cards that are expired or suspended, although there are fines, points and community services imposed. Why were gun owners demonized so harshly as second-class resident paper criminals (they don’t even rank as citizens)?

It wasn’t until the anti-terrorism legislation (Bill C-36) was rushed into law in late December, 2001–less than four months after the 9/11 attack on America which indicates it was waiting in the wings–that well-known Toronto lawyer Clayton Ruby felt the pinch over the exact things that firearms owners had decried for years and he rebuffed.

Thinking along Liberal lines, his theory was that only police and the military needed guns.

Yet in a by-lined Globe and Mail article of December 11, 2001, Ruby expressed fears that the threat of terrorism was impelling Canadians to give up or distort their fundamental rights and democratic freedoms.

“It is the role of lawyers in a free society to defend the rights of the oppressed, and not to be conscripted by government to secretly inform on their clients,” he contended. “The chilling effect of these provisions may make it impossible for individuals or organizations targeted by the government to obtain any access to justice at all.”

It was on January 21, 2004 that Ottawa Citizen journalist Julie O’Neill personally felt the electric jolt from the same long arm of the law. She came to the stark realization that the future of her profession–and freedom of the press–was under attack.

On March 20, she told the University of King’s College School of Journalism in Halifax, Nova Scotia, she no longer took her freedoms for granted.

She, of all people, never should have taken her freedoms for granted in the first place. One must always be vigilant for lurking dangers.

On that fateful January day, O’Neill could have commiserated with gun owners’ plight. Her private life was shattered. Her sense of her home as a private sanctuary evaporated. She no longer assumes–and never should have assumed–that her telephone conversations and e-mail correspondence were private nor that her computer files belonged to her.

Every nook and cranny of her “castle” was searched. She was now living in a glass house. Not even her lingerie drawer escaped the indignities. Her garbage was whisked away by one of the 20 armed RCMP officers from the Orwellian 1984 Truth Verification squad who flooded her house, guarded her premises and simultaneously raided her newspaper office. (Suggested reading of this spooky matter is the detailed article The Wrong Arm of the Law, Ryerson Review of Journalism, summer 2005,

What had O’Neill done to invite and deserve such oppressive state-perpetrated tactics? After all, this is supposed to be Canada.

She had written a newspaper article.

O’Neill was incredulous when she discovered writing for a public journal can be hazardous to your health; it is punishable for up to 14 years in prison.

The police raided her home and office in search of her source of information and a document cited by her in an Ottawa Citizen article of November 8, 2003.

Her story focused on Maher Arar, the Syrian-born Canadian computing engineer. She related he was deemed an al-Qaeda terrorist by U.S. authorities. Arar was detained in New York and taken to Syria. When returned to Canada in October, 2003, a year later, he told tales of imprisonment and torture.

O’Neill’s story told how he came to the attention of anti-terrorist investigators in Canada and of a series of security leaks that linked him to terrorism.

I don’t know where this woman of the mass media press had been. But when she returned to the real world, hopefully she was less naive. This is Kanuckistan after all, the True North Proud and Gagged by such freedom-sucking legislation as C-68 (the Firearms Act), C-36 (Anti-Terrorism), and, at the relevant time, the new Elections Act.

I had long begged people of O’Neill’s ilk and prestige to keep vigilance on Yukonslavia as the Petri-dish of what was happening to Canada, but they obviously can’t be bothered with such trivial matters…not until their ox is gored.

Now my invitation doesn’t matter because these atrocities have gone on a global scale, thanks to the New York City-based United Nations that is leading the charge to a One-World Order totalitarian society in which individualism is taboo; the masses will dress, eat and think alike, live in identical stack’em-pack’em units and be allowed to own only bare, government-issued necessities to exist.

Interestingly, O’Neill was caught under the Security of Information Act portion of the anti-terrorism legislation which seemed redundant, anyway. O’Neill noted that s. 4 reads exactly the same as the dusty old Official Secrets Act of 1939, which she didn’t believe was intended to prevent journalists from doing their job.

I wouldn’t bet on that, although the accepted purpose was for Canadians to catch German spies and Communist infiltrators like their American counterparts were doing at the relevant time.

In 1949-50, the Alger Hiss-Whittaker Chambers spy case was underway before the House Un-American Activities Committee. Hiss, a Harvard-trained lawyer, was a high-ranking employee in the State Department who denied any espionage involvement with Communists. Chambers, a self-confessed Communist, accused Hiss of espionage.

Believe it or not, a five-year statue of limitations existed on espionage, but no statute of limitations existed on perjury, for which Hiss was tried and sentenced to five years in a federal penitentiary.

The state is always able to find SOMETHING the sinner can be convicted of, no matter how self-serving.

The conviction offered little-known Senator Joe McCarthy of Wisconsin a golden opportunity to make political hay. He railed that the State Department was infested with Communists.

Then came the mass hysteria.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation had been stalking those considered disloyal since 1947. The agency conducted a check of two million names on the federal payrolls and the 500,000 who annually applied for U.S. government jobs.

Any dirt–regardless how minor–would bring on a full investigation into a person’s past. No proof of subversive activities was necessary for dismissal.

Often, civil servants were fired without knowing why and not knowing who had accused them of having ties with the Communist Party. Since the accused didn’t know who they were fighting, they were defenseless.

Once the wrongdoer was pinpointed and neighbours interrogated, the victim and his family were automatically and immediately ostracized from society. So-called friends and neighbours were afraid to associate with someone accused of Communist activities.

Movie extras, film stars, entertainers–even kindergarten teachers–were blacklisted from working in their respective occupations. Successful one minute, they were out in the streets penniless the next.

Justice under the vigilantes was kangaroo-court style. The deck was forever stacked against the accused, despite investigators lacking any knowledge at all about the informer’s background or motives. And they didn’t care.

It was akin to the Puritans’ Salem witch trials of 1692, and just as bad, if not worse, then what has happening in Soviet Russia under Communism, and what Canada has adopted today.

Sometime back in the late 15th century Europe, Christian church clergymen had been directed that when sorcery with the Devil was charged by someone, but went unproven, the consequences would be suffered by the accuser–NOT the accused.

It did wonders for minimizing false accusations against the innocents and certainly cut down considerably on expensive public-funded trials.

I advocate returning to this policy posthaste.

October 14, 2012

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

September 22, 2012

“Windy Wendy” Cukier wastes no time in whining to the media about court loss

"Windy Wendy" Cukier

“Windy Wendy” Cukier

Windy Wendy” Cukier, ever the complainer, didn’t waste a second in getting her sniveling complaints out to the media in the wake of Ontario Superior Court of Justice Judge D. M. Brown’s decision to kill The Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic lawsuit to keep the long gun registry data.

    “This decision is a setback but we will continue to fight for sensible controls on rifles and shotguns. Information about who owns what guns is essential to reducing the diversion of guns to illegal markets and the registry data has been shown to be useful in solving crimes. Destroying the data that has already been collected on 7.1 million guns makes no sense whatsoever, and is simply punitive. Quebec stood up to the gun lobby and, as a result, is still able to trace firearms. Outside of Quebec, rifles and shotguns are now completely untraceable. These guns are those most often used in domestic violence and when police officers are shot on duty. They also account for a significant proportion of the firearms recovered in crime.

As Dr. Mike Ackermann said,

   “If they truly wanted “sensible” laws, we would be on their side.
You’d think they would have figured this out by now.”

Very well said, Dr. Ackermann!

All of the arguments put forth by “Windy Wendy” have been proven to be, at best, disingenuous.  There are other words for it, such as propaganda, I suppose, but even someone as misguided as “Windy Wendy” Cukier is entitled to her opinion.  It’s just a shame that she’s not willing to open her mind up to the simple fact that criminals don’t register firearms and as a result her methods simply will never ever do what she says they will: prevent crime.

The only people who register firearms are law-abiding people.  What’s the point in tracking the people who are NOT the problem?  You’ll have to ask “Windy Wendy” as it makes no sense to me.

That said, the Minister of Public Safety had a very short rebuttal to the whining out of Cukier’s Corner.

    (September 21, 2012) Today, the Ontario Superior Court dismissed the motion from the Barbara Schlifer Legal Clinic which sought to stop our government from destroying the data contained in the wasteful and ineffective long-gun registry.  Justice Brown described the arguments put forward against our legislation as “weak” (paragraph 167).We were very pleased that the Ontario Superior Court has ruled in favour of law-abiding hunters, farmers and sport shooters. This is an absolute victory for the rule of law.The will of Parliament and Canadians has been clear. We do not want any form of a wasteful and ineffective long gun registry.The NDP has consistently said that if given the chance they would try and use this data to target law-abiding hunters, farmers and sport shooters.Our Conservative Government will always stand up for the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

While the Conservative Government has a long way to go in defending the rights of Canada’s law-abiding firearm owners, such as removing sections 91 and 92 from the Criminal Code of Canada, it’s nice to see him putting some of our money where his mouth is.


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