Tag Archives: Canada’s Firearms Act
June 19, 2014

Phil Hewkin’s Artwork Nails It to Loony Left

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

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

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

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

Does that sound reasonable and rational?

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

Inconsistencies-Of-The-Left

Image Courtesy of Phil Hewkin. Used with permission.

 

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

June 18, 2014

Donna Montague Speaks Out on Criminal Case Against Her Husband

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

Bruce-Montague-Court-Ruling

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

I have had Enough!

I am thoroughly disgusted!

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

Now that the trial is over I can speak.

The search of our home:

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

Bruce’s character:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Donna Montague

 

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

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

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

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

Some points to consider in these letters may be:

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

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

Thanks,

Donna Montague

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

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

June 6, 2014

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

NFA-Dancing-on-Monctons-Dead-CopsPFTR

NFA-Dancing-on-Monctons-Dead-CopsPFTR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is that really what we want?

Yours in Liberty,

My Signature Red

 

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

June 5, 2014

Bruce Montague’s Response to Forfeiture Order

Bruce-Montague-Statement-on-Court-of-Appeal-Forfeiture-Order-PFTR
Mike Ackermann liked this post

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours in Liberty,

Bruce Montague

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

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

– -Pastor Martin Niemoller (Lutheran Pastor)

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

June 4, 2014

Gunsmith Bruce Montague, Dr. Henry Morgentaler and Abortion Law

Bruce-Montague-Court-Ruling
Keltie Zubko, Mike Ackermann liked this post

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, it is not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, I mean you, James McKeachie.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Certainly not rapists and child molesters.

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

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

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

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

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

We’re lower than rapists and child molesters.

 

 

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

May 27, 2014

What Kills More Canadians Each Year – Knives or Guns?

Whick-Kills-More-Canadaians---Knives-or-Guns-PFTR
Attila Vaski, Mike Ackermann liked this post

Whick-Kills-More-Canadaians---Knives-or-Guns-PFTR

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

March 16, 2012

Lawyer Solomon Friedman hits a home run before the Canadian Senate

Solomon-Friedman

I’d happily add my 2 cents worth to what Mr. Solomon says in the video below, but then I would be robbing you of the opportunity to listen to someone who, on a daily basis, has been battling the stupid legislation we know as the Firearms Act and its Criminal Code amendments.

Lawyer Solomon Friedman does an excellent job of explaining why ordinary, law-abiding Canadians are fed up with being the scapegoats for the actions of violent criminals.

So, without any more from me, here he is.  Enjoy!

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

February 12, 2012

Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant understands why gun owners hate the Firearms Act. Pity the Minister of Public Safety, Vic Toews, isn’t listening to her

conservative-mp-cheryl-gallant

On Tuesday, February 7, 2012, Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant rose in the House of Commons and made the following speech.  In it she highlights why everyday law-abiding Canadian gun owners despise Canada’s Firearms Act, and why, to quote her, “The creation by the Liberals of a new criminal class, rural firearm owners, was the ultimate triumph of the negative political politics” that served only to alienate the largest single group of allies law enforcement previously enjoyed: Canadian Firearm Owners.

She highlights the Constitutional violations contained in Bill C-68, the original proposal which is now known as the Firearms Act and its Criminal Code Amendments.  She correctly points out that the problem with the Firearms Act is not “just” that it forces law-abiding citizens to register their private property, for that is not what most firearm owners despise about the Firearms Act.

What firearm owners despise is that simply by choosing to own firearms, our Constitutional Rights have been violated to the point where welfare recipients and pedophiles are granted more rights than we are under our so-called Justice System.

The very questions we must answer have been ruled unconstitutional if asked of a welfare recipient, and even a pedophile has the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure. Not firearm owners.  We have no such rights any longer.  The Firearms Act, brought in by a former Liberal Government and its Minister of Justice Allan Rock, has seen to that.

Ms. Gallant comprehends all these facts and many more.

The only point I would argue with Ms. Gallant is where she says “this blatant assault on the Canadian Constitution can only be stopped by Bill C-19.  Bill C-19 actually does nothing to stop the Constitutional violations that law-abiding Canadian firearm owners live under every single day.

Bill C-19 is merely a single drop in the bucket of remedies that must take place in Parliament if we are ever going to restore Canadian firearm owners’ Constitutional Rights and treat them, dare I say it, as well as pedophiles and welfare recipients.

I urge you to read Ms. Gallant’s words carefully.  If you have time, read the remainder of the questions posed to her by opposition members in the house and her and her colleague’s answers.  It is truly enlightening.

When you’re done reading, I would ask you to send her a letter of thanks for speaking so eloquently on behalf of Canadian firearm owners.

Then I urge you to forward these words to the Minister of Public Safety, Vic Toews and ask him to read them.  Finally, send them to your own Member of Parliament as well as your provincial representative.

They all need to read Ms. Gallant’s timely message.

Pay close attention to her very last question.  It’s one no Liberal will ever answer, and I have to wonder why our so-called Conservative Prime Minister has, so far at least, refused to remove this from Canadian law.  Is the answer simply that in order to finally achieve his much-desired majority, Stephen Harper and the rest of his government is now Conservative in name only?

(more…)

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

June 9, 2011

Bringing the “administration of justice into disrepute”

I wandered around the Coalition for Gun Control’s website this morning, just to see what they were up to.  A headline caught my attention, because it’s a flat-out lie.

April 2011- The gun registry never killed anyone. Ending it may. Stand up for safety.

How can this headline possibly be a lie?  Do I have a crystal ball or something that let’s me see into the future? Nope.  I’ve got way better than that.

I’ve got the facts.

Clearly the Coalition for Gun Control either doesn’t have them, or wants to ignore them.  I suspect it’s both. Ignorance of the facts is a critical part of the mindset that insists on tools that don’t actually work.

Before we get to the facts, let’s clear the air so all those anti-gun fanatics like Wendy Cukier and Beverly Akerman can have a little something to chew on.

I am a firearm owner.  I like firearms.  They’re fun.  I have 1st place trophies on the wall from two different shooting disciplines, and I’ve spent considerable time and energy learning about how to use firearms responsibly.  I am a certified firearms instructor and range safety officer.

I am biased.  I like guns.

I also like facts.  I do my research.  I want to make sure that my position is on solid ground, not foundering in emotional quicksand.

(more…)

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

May 6, 2011

Canada’s Firearms Act is as effective as ever… which means not at all.

Canada’ Firearms Act keeps Canadians safe from gun violence.  That’s what the head of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP) will have you believe, anyway.   It’s a load of Public Relations garbage, but they keep saying it.

Let’s take an example from news headlines to illustrate how useless the Firearms Act truly is.  Off to Winnipeg, where flooding has the city very nervous, and rightfully so.

But what should make Winnipegers more nervous, indeed concerned, should be how a 15-year-old boy got his hands on a loaded handgun.

I think the head of the CACP should try explaining that to the family of Trevor Abraham Harper, the 22-year-old who was murdered on April 29th, apparently for the “crime” of sitting in his car.

Handguns have been registered and severely restricted in Canada since 1934.  Funny how violent criminals just never seem to have gotten that message. (more…)

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


Go To Top
Get Adobe Flash player