Archive | Gun Politics 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, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

March 11, 2015

BATF Backpedals from M855 .233 Calibre Ammunition Ban

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:


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, 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!



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.


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,


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

November 16, 2014

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

Ryan Steacy liked this post


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.”


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, 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-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 7, 2014

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

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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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

May 29, 2014 Attacks and Mocks Women Gun Owners

In a disparaging article titled “Meet the Glocker Moms“, writer Alexander Zaitchik takes aim at the NRA and its female members. The National Rifle Association held their annual general meeting in Indianapolis, Indiana, and this brought on the attack against both the NRA and its female gun owners.

Why attack women gun owners? According to the NRA, says the article, a full 25% of this year’s attendees were female. Gun-owning moms comprehend that defending their lives and the lives of their children is important. As a demographic women gun owners are growing daily and are now a force to be reckoned with.

That ought to scare the crap out of anti-gun weanies like Mayor Bloomberg.

“It’s not just about ‘moms,'” said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation.

“The future is about all of the non-traditional groups: single women, the LGBT community, people living in cities, Hispanics who come to this country to enjoy our freedoms, including Second Amendment rights. Those are the only places we can grow. That’s where you find the future of the gun-rights movement.”

As he began packing up his materials, I asked Gottlieb if the rapid adoption of maternal messaging — by the NRA, by the Glocker Moms, by industry — might not betray a fear, or at least a nervousness, that suburban women and mothers, if unchallenged, could swing the political momentum toward serious gun reform.

“Fear? Look around,” he said, gesturing at the bustling arms bazaar extending in every direction.

“No, I really don’t think these guys are too worried about their future.”

There is a joke floating around the internet about a granny who gets pulled over at a traffic stop. The cop asks if there are any firearms in the car. She pulls out a shotgun, a handgun and then another handgun. The cop asks her what she’s so afraid of. Her answer?

“Not a damned thing!”

It’s not about fear. It’s about self-defense and the knowledge that when criminals attack the only ones present are we mere citizens. A mother will defend herself and her children like no other.

Anyone doubting that reality forgets the lesson of Oklahoma’s Sarah Dawn McKinley, the courageous young woman and mother who killed one of the would-be home invaders threatening her and her children. As I wrote then,

Like Sarah and any right-thinking human being, I believe the lives of a mother and her infant son are ALWAYS worth more than the pond scum trying to do them harm.

A mother has a duty to do everything in her power to protect her children. That includes shooting the would-be attackers dead. Anyone who believes otherwise is, to be polite, extremely misguided.

There is, however, one positive note to Zaitchik’s gun-phobic article.

Canadian pro-gun entrepreneur Kim Page’s company Packing in Pink, which manufactures and markets firearm safety gear specifically designed for women, featured prominently in the photos attached to the article.

Even the morons at like Alexander Zaitchik ought to realize firearm safety is important. Okay, I realize I’m probably giving them more credit than they deserve.

According to these cowards, guns belong in the hands of the police, military and the bodyguards of Very Important Liberals only.

Why do I keep forgetting that?


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

May 22, 2014

Facebook Photo Equals Child Abuse? When a Firearm is Visible… Absolutely!

Mike Ackermann, Robert Bailey liked this post


Imagine the scenario.

You post an innocent photo of your son holding a rifle on Facebook. Your son is 11 years old. He is well trained in firearm safety by you. His finger is off the trigger in the photo, just as it should be.

Some pathetic crybaby sees the photo online and calls the New Jersey Department of Children and Families who, in turn, contact the police.

Both agencies raid your home and attempt to search it. They demand to see your gun safe and all your firearms for “inspection”. When you refuse to accede to their ridiculous demands because they don’t have a search warrant these so-called authorities label you “unreasonable” and “uncooperative” and say you act “suspiciously”.

Imagine that.

Stand up for your rights and you are “unreasonable”.

Demand police respect your rights and you are “suspicious” and “uncooperative”.

Rights are inviolate. Police thugs hate that. Good cops don’t, of course, because they respect your rights but those aren’t the type of police at your door late this night.

However, the police finally do leave, but not before threatening to take your children away from you.

This is no fable; no mere story.

This is precisely the violation Shawn Moore, an NRA-certified firearms instructor and range safety officer, faced last year when some whining little ninny saw a photo on Facebook of Shawn’s son holding a rifle.

In their rush to abuse a law-abiding firearm owner these police state thugs failed to obtain a search warrant. Actually, the more likely scenario is no judge with functional brain cells would issue a search warrant based on such flimsy and absurd “evidence.”

Clearly all common sense vacated the puny brains of the minions at the New Jersey Department of Children and Families and their counterparts in the police department.

Nanny State Minion Kristen Brown, aka spokesperson for New Jersey Department of Children and Families, parroted the usual tripe about “duty” while not comprehending the meaning of the word.

“The department has a child abuse hotline for the state of New Jersey and anybody can make a call to that hotline. We are required to follow up on every single allegation that comes into the central registry. In general our role is to investigate allegations of child abuse and neglect.”

An anonymous phone call complaining of a Facebook photo of a child holding a rifle is considered an allegation of child abuse?

How absurd.



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 16, 2014

Gun Ownership Leads To Gun Violence but only if you add the Medical Lobby and completely twist the facts



To paraphrase Eric Rauch’s eloquent article from 2012, Do More Guns Lead to More Violent Crime?, gun ownership leads to gun violence the same way car ownership leads to drunk driving. It just isn’t so.

Rauch’s article came in response to doctors claims they discovered something new about gun violence, namely that gun ownership leads to gun violence, when in reality they merely twisted the facts to meet their own preconceived notions.

Anti-gun activists are not interested in data that doesn’t support their case, so they twist the information instead, making it appear to say something that it most certainly does not. This is neither scientific nor honest. It is nothing but political propaganda, being delivered by a “trusted authority” in a white lab coat.

While I urge you to read Eric Rauch’s entire article, here is just a little of his response to these so-called experts.

Wow. In a nation of gunowners, where it is estimated that the number of guns is between 260-300 million (it is probably even higher than this), it is somehow statistically relevant that gun ownership precedes gun violence. This fact is about as helpful as the fact that car ownership tends to precede auto fatalities, or that home ownership precedes house fire deaths; one does not predict the other.

The FBI estimates that two-thirds of all homicides are committed with guns, yet only 9% of violent crimes actually involve guns. This is highly significant. A homicide is a violent crime where a death results. This would fall into the 9% category. However, attempted homicide, robberies, carjackings, domestic disputes, gang violence, etc, that involve guns also are a part of that 9%. This means that 89% of violent crime does not involve a gun.

In a nation where guns number almost 1:1 of the population, this lack of correlation is much more important than the miniscule relationship where they do seem to correlate.

It is significant that in a nation of over 300 million people guns are used in violent crimes only 9% of the time. That’s a far cry from the incessant wailing that America is drowning in “gun violence”, isn’t int?

If you dig deeper into those “gun crime” statistics a few other things are quite apparent. I will leave you to discover those facts for yourself, lest you feel a need to label me racist or hateful or some other derogatory name. (While you’re looking into such matters, take a look at “gun crime” in the greater Toronto area… you will discover the very same trend.)

Eric Rauch goes on to mock their “findings” with a few of his own, such as

Without seeing the data, I can confidently predict that 100% of violent crimes involve people. Of those 100%, every one of them had parents. This seems to be a much stronger predictor than gun ownership: having parents always precedes violent crime. In fact, having parents is a precursor to any kind of crime, not only violent ones. This is the real epidemic. Why can’t these doctors see this as the real problem?

A gun is simply a tool. It can be used for good or evil. It has no morality of its own. That morality is reserved for the human being, of which 100% are involved in “gun violence” and in fact in all violence.

Let me give you an example.

I can take a handgun out of my gun safe, load it, chamber a round, cock the trigger and put it down on my kitchen table. If I felt so inclined I could even point it directly at myself.

I am 100% confident my gun will not shoot me. In fact it will sit on that table pointing at me for the rest of my life unless some human being comes along and picks it up.

Whether that loaded gun will be used for good or evil depends 100% on that individual.

It’s so simple.

The gun has no power over that choice, just as the car has no power over whether a person drives drunk or not.

Cars cause drunk driving like spoons made Rosie O’Donnell fat; like gun ownership makes “gun criminals”. One simply does not lead to the other.

People commit crimes, not inanimate objects.

Why is this so hard for so many to comprehend?

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?

March 31, 2014

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some pigs are more equal than others.


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

March 18, 2014

The Civilian Range Project – An Idea Whose Time Is NOW



The Civilian Range Project.

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

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

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

The Civilian Range Project.

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

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

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

It’s high time that abuse ended.

The Civilian Range Project is this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will this require a sacrifice from gun clubs?


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

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

We are worth far more than that.

Our shooting ranges are worth far more than that.

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

It’s time we valued ourselves correctly.

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

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

This will generate press coverage.

This will generate political attention.

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

Deny police agencies access to our civilian shooting ranges.

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

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

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

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

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

We can expect a staring match for months.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We own them.

We control who uses them.

They need them.

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

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

They must find somewhere else to shoot.

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

We are Canada’s most law-abiding citizens.

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

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

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

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


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

March 10, 2014

RCMP Promotes Anti-Bullying Initiative While Bullying Gun Owners



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

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

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

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

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

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

Justin Thomas:

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

Caleb Geauvreau:

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

Al Yasinski:

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

Stephen Weese:

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

Eric Yule:

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

John C Corden:

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 7, 2014

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



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

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

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

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

As Matt Gurney wrote in the National Post,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Officer Safety”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those guys will shoot back.

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

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

March 1, 2014

The RCMP Hates One Thing More Than Firearms: Firearm Owners



The priorities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) are screwed up.

You may think tracking down child pornographers might be a bigger priority for RCMP investigators but I suspect you would be wrong. The RCMP seems far more intent on tracking down law-abiding gun owners and building files on them instead.

In 2013 and 2013, for example, the RCMP spent $1 million on their “Firearms Internet Investigative Support Unit”.

What’s that, you ask? It’s an RCMP unit comprised of one RCMP sergeant and 6 civilian employees whose sole job is to troll the internet and track what certain Canadians are saying, doing and thinking.

Ordinary people like you and me.

We’ve committed no crimes, nor will we.

We mere citizens have the audacity, however, to own private property the RCMP deems unacceptable.

We own firearms.

Canadian firearm owners, the legal ones who take the safety courses, pass RCMP background checks and receive spousal support for their firearm license application, are the most law-abiding segment of society. Collectively we own millions of firearms yet we harm nobody.

We are a threat to nobody. I can say that with certainty because the RCMP themselves “permit” us to own firearms. They stamped “Approved” on our firearm license applications and sent us on our way to be checked up on continuously by Chief Firearms Officers and other RCMP entities like the “Firearms Internet Investigative Support Unit”, supposedly to enhance public safety.

If we attend a gun show we’re tracked. If we buy a gun we’re tracked. If we sell a gun we’re tracked, and at each and every step the RCMP decides if we are “eligible” to retain our firearm license. Should they deem us “ineligible” our license will be revoked, we will be arrested and our firearms seized.

Gun-Owners-Eat-BabiesAll because we dare own firearms.

If we’re so dangerous why were we issued firearms licenses in the first place?

Clearly we are not dangerous.

We are no threat to anyone. Anyone, that is, except the RCMP bureaucrats who believe firearms in the hands of good people is a bad thing.

To those folks we’re far worse than any child molester, serial rapist or murderer.

We’re gun owners.

(I can’t wait to send in my firearms license renewal  application! Their file on me must be pretty thick by now and I’m sure this article won’t help my case.)

Manufacturing Criminals

Just this week the RCMP turned thousands of Canadian gun owners into criminals when they arbitrarily reclassified 2 firearms from Non-Restricted (anyone can own one and take it to the shooting range or out to the woods shooting) to Prohibited (you can ONLY take it to a shooting range IF you can get an Authorization to Transport it).

Anyone who owns the CZ-858 manufactured after 2006 or the Swiss Arms Classic Green rifles is now a criminal in possession of a prohibited firearm despite the fact each and every person purchased these firearms legally.

Each and every one of those licensed firearm owners are all now liable for up to 10 years in prison (Criminal Code Section 92 -2) for possessing a rifle the RCMP “allowed” them to purchase legally for the past decade.

RCMP bureaucrats made this decision to manufacture criminals out of ordinary law-abiding Canadians. There was no order from the Minister of Public Safety. There was no threat to Canadians. There was simply a bureaucratic decision by the RCMP to manufacture thousands of “gun criminals”.


For what it’s worth, and that value s yet to be determined, Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney is “troubled” that unelected and unaccountable RCMP bureaucrats keep pulling this crap. In a statement issued on February 29, 2014 he wrote:

Conservatives have always stood up for law-abiding gun owners.

That’s why I was troubled to learn of a decision made by unelected bureaucrats to prohibit a number of rifles imported from Switzerland.

I want to assure you that I will not let law-abiding gun owners suffer as a result of this situation.

These now “prohibited” firearms had been classified as non-restricted for more than a decade. The RCMP has no idea how many of these rifles exist, and they have not announced any plan on how to deal with those who purchased these firearms lawfully.

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.

The actions of these bureaucrats are absolutely unacceptable and I will be announcing concrete measures in the coming days.

Our Conservative Government is on your side — and we will always stand up for the rights of law-abiding firearms owners.

Thank you once again for your years of loyal support.


Steven Blaney
MP, Levis-Bellechasse

While it is refreshing to see Steven Blaney come out so strongly against this arbitrary criminal creation the real definition of the Conservatives having “always stood up for law-abiding gun owners” will be seen in what Blaney actually does on this issue.

Unless he orders the RCMP to reverse both of these firearm re-classifications immediately his words will be meaningless.

If he merely offers compensation for these firearms and allows the RCMP bureaucrats to order their destruction then we will know exactly where the Conservative government stands in relation to law-abiding Canadian gun owners: with the RCMP and their unelected and unaccountable anti-gun bureaucrats.

Standing up for law-abiding gun owners means stopping the RCMP’s attacks on us. Period.

The Harper government and Minister of Public Safety Steven Blaney specifically must take control of these RCMP bureaucrats immediately.

So far that hasn’t happened.

The High River gun confiscation fiasco was never resolved to anyone’s satisfaction, except maybe the RCMP’s. No heads rolled, nobody lost their jobs for violating the Rights and Freedoms of Canadians. It is business as usual as far as the RCMP is concerned and law-abiding Canadian gun owners are understandably fearful.

At any given moment any one of us can be turned into a criminal with the potential to spend years in prison even though we’ve followed every rule, obeyed every law and jumped through every hoop asked of us, all at the whim of some nameless and faceless RCMP bureaucrat.

That is what’s unacceptable.

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