• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Great Gun Control Debate

Not open for further replies.
Infidel-6 said:
The chair is against the wall, the chair is against the wall. John has a long moustache. John has a long moustache.

I hear ya Uncle Sam ;)

Although from the rhetoric coming out from down there, you may be the ones in the occupied zone soon.
Bruce Monkhouse said:
Well, except that they would all walk as there would be no cellular accommodations available....

We can get that billion from the CBC ;)
recceguy said:
I hear ya Uncle Sam ;)

Although from the rhetoric coming out from down there, you may be the ones in the occupied zone soon.

I forsee a civil revolt before another gun law is passed down here...
Thucydides said:
Our Gun Registry is a steal at $2 billion and counting, and to my knowledge no crime has ever been solved using the "tools and information" provided by the gun registry.

Are you kidding?  We have rounded up hundreds of criminals with the registry.  All those nefarious characters that didn't renew their licences before their birthday.  And the evil address changers, we love locking those guys up!  Clearly the streets are safer! 
:peace: :whiteflag:
Infidel-6 said:
I forsee a civil revolt before another gun law is passed down here...

I think Perlois is smelling the burning torches and has tried to lay the AWB monster to bed for awhile. The Dems have more sneaky ways of screwing the gun owners now.
Sent to the Edmonton Sun today, in response to an editor's comment on a letter at http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/Letters/2009/02/26/8549856-sun.html

Texas' violent crime rate in 2004 was 540.9/100,000 population (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/txcrime.htm). For 2005, 2006, and 2007 it was 528.1, 516.3, and 510.6 respectively, representing a fairly steady decline since a peak of 840.1 in 1991.

Canada's violent crime rate in 2004 was 946/100,000 population, and Alberta's was 1087 (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/050721/dq050721a-eng.htm).

While there may be some minor differences in definitions of what constitutes a violent crime and reporting mechanisms, those should not be sufficient to account for Alberta's twice-as-high-as-Texas' 2004 violent crime rates. Even at its peak of violent crime in 1991, Texas was less criminally violent than Alberta today, and even Canada as a whole. Given that cities tend to attract violent gangs, I'd posit that Edmonton's crime rate is higher than Alberta's average.

Would you, then, like to reconsider your response to Derek Simpson's letter of 27 February 2009 that "Except our violent crime rate is already lower than Texas'"?

Texas is next door to Mexico, and suffers a spillover effect of the drug cartel wars ravaging that nation. What's your excuse for Edmonton, Alberta, and Canada?

Texas permits qualified citizens to carry concealed firearms for their personal defence, a significant factor in its relatively low rate of violent crime. Canada does not, thereby rendering citizens helpless in the face of violence.

An armed and empowered society is not one where crime flourishes. Whether you like that or not, and allow emotion and prejudice to trump logic and fact, it does not diminish the truth.


I should have added "and neither does Mexico" after "Canada does not" in the second-last paragraph. Too late now.
My wife just reminded me that Texas also has capital punishment.  Maybe an additonal contributor.
FastEddy said:

Are you kidding me ?, either your very Stupid or very Ignorant to Investigative procedures and Ballistic recovery & Comparison. I would like to think its the later.

So for your information, the ability to immediately match a recovered Bullet, postmortem or Crime Scene with a Face and Weapon, would be a great asset and starting point to Investigators, regardless of possible variations since the original purchase.

Now the registry would serve a constructive purpose besides a fancy and Expensive Sales Record.

- Try this: fire five shots from a rifle and type them.  Then lap the barrel as you would to break in a fine sub-MOA piece.
- Now, fire five shots again and type them.  Same barrel?


- Or if it's borrowed, just give it a really bad cleaning.  A barrel is a precision instrument, until you give it a bad cleaning.  Try getting a conviction after that...

Cause and effect: the US ammo shortage


Nationwide Ammunition Shortage Hits U.S.

Posted By Bob Owens On February 28, 2009 @ 12:00 am In . Column2 01, . Positioning, Gun Control, Politics, US News | 77 Comments

If you, like thousands of other Americans, have Googled to find out why we are in the middle of a nationwide ammunition shortage, you would have stumbled across this [1] 2007 blog entry.

In it, I corrected a poorly researched Associated Press story by Estes Thompson that claimed the military’s consumption of ammunition was responsible for police ammunition shortages here in the United States. Few things could have been further from the truth, but it seems rather apparent, in retrospect, that the goal of that AP article wasn’t to find the truth as much as it was to (falsely) lay blame for the police ammunition shortages at the feet of George W. Bush.

The real fact of the matter is that the military got the bulk of its small arms (pistol, rifle, machine gun) ammunition from one contracted ammunition plant, and that plant wasn’t even running near capacity. The military’s consumption clearly wasn’t to blame, and anecdotal evidence and statements from ammunition manufacturers strongly suggested that police departments themselves caused the 2007 ammunition shortage by purchasing far more ammunition than they had in the past.

But what is causing our current ammunition shortages here in 2009?

Much of the demand comes from continued high law enforcement demand, the same demand that led to shortages two years ago. Police agencies around the nation have become more militarized in recent years and two trends within this militarization have led to greater police ammunition demand.

An increase in the size and number of paramilitary police units

Once upon a time, highly trained, heavily armed police units with alphabet-soup acronyms such as SWAT, SRT, SRU, or ERT were generally found as part of large, metropolitan police departments. Today, law enforcement agencies of every size — including some [2] university police forces — have SWAT-type units armed with some combination of submachine guns, assault rifles, and sniper rifles to add to the traditional compliment of pistols and shotguns. To become proficient to the level expected of these units, each officer must fire thousands of rounds in training every year.

An increase in the use of “patrol carbines” in law enforcement

Some agencies prefer to call them “patrol carbines”; others refer to them as “tactical rifles.” But whatever you call them, rifles based upon the AR-15 are becoming increasingly common as a weapon deployed to police officers outside of SWAT units, for some very logical reasons. AR-type rifles extend the range at which patrol officers can engage armed criminals, and because rifles have more practical accuracy than pistols, they can potentially reduce the number of shots fired to neutralize a suspect. Paired with the right kind of ammunition, the .223 Remington/5.56mm caliber rifle also has surprisingly less over-penetration, theoretically reducing threats to civilians who might be downrange. Each of these weapons will also require officers carrying them to fire hundreds of rounds in training each year, and in a city that rotates rifles from one shift to another among their patrol units, this can necessitate tens of thousands of rounds of training ammunition.

Fears of draconian gun and ammunition restrictions

The 2008 elections that saw the Democratic Party extend their power in both houses of Congress and saw Barack Obama elected president made gun owners very nervous, and [3] with good reason.

We have a president that has favored gun bans and who desires to reinstate the horribly flawed 1994 assault weapons ban authored by our rather dim vice president. We also have radically anti-gun majority leaders in both the House of Representatives and Senate, and a Congress quite willing to pass massive, bloated laws without even bothering to read the contents. Fears of encroachment are certainly warranted.

Economic instability

As economies become unstable and people lose jobs, crime rates go up. It is an economic fact of life. Many people who are worried about an increase in crime arm themselves during economic downturns, leading to an increased demand for firearms and ammunition.

As a result of all of these factors, manufacturers of firearms and ammunition saw demand increase to unprecedented levels as civilians have made a run on the kind of firearms they suspect that gun control advocates presently in charge will try to outlaw.

This includes all handguns, all semi-automatic rifles (especially those targeted by the 1994 assault weapons bill that expired in 2004), and most semi-automatic shotguns.

Matt Reams of [4] Sierra Bullets noted that after the 2008 presidential election demand shot up 50%-100% for bullets used by handguns or rifles in military calibers, and says, “Law enforcement has seemed to increase quite a bit the last year or so. The individuals jumped in after the elections and pushed our orders over the top when we were already running in high gear.”

[5] Federal Premium/[6] ATK is the largest ammunition manufacturer in the world, running the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant for the U.S. military under contract; it also is a major supplier of law enforcement and civilians. In a statement, the company noted “unprecedented demand” for law enforcement ammunition. While other corporations are presently laying off workers and shutting down operations, ATK is in the middle of capital improvements to further increase production capability.

Rick Shoupe of [7] PMC Ammunition, which has a more civilian-focused market for his company’s products, reflected in his explanation:

    Shortly before the presidential election the dam broke as far as U.S. gun and ammunition sales are concerned. I believe it is a reaction by the general public because of two main reasons. Number one, the political environment which results from the attitudes about gun control in the majority of Congress and the president himself. They are anti-gun. Number two, the current financial crisis in the U.S. has added to the frenzy, causing again the general public to want some sort of personal protection. Just in case they need it.

    We are seeing a bubble in demand like I have never seen before and I have been in this business for 35 years. This demand is in addition to the military and law enforcement that also continues. PMC has expanded production to try and handle as much of the demand as it can before the demand starts to drop. Even so, the first scent of legislation being introduced to Congress will light another candle in the demand for these products. It will not end until the legislation is passed.

Individual shooters are stockpiling thousands of rounds of ammunition because of fears of future punitive taxation or outright bans of certain kinds of ammunition. Law enforcement agencies are also stockpiling ammunition to make sure they have enough on hand to meet training requirements. The shortage we are seeing is the result of both agencies and private citizens hoarding the most sought-after ammunition.

Thus, this shortage is the result of an accordion effect that has developed over the past few years.

Law enforcement agencies have been rapidly increasing their ammunition consumption because of how they are rearming, causing a permanent increase in demand. Just as ammunition manufacturers began to cope with that increase, a second run, based upon a downward-turning economy and rising fears of laws targeting gun and ammunition, dramatically expanded demand yet again.

Shortages of ammunition and firearms can be expected to continue for as long as it appears our overreaching federal government is a threat to our individual liberties, our economy continues to falter, and our police agencies keep militarizing.

It’s going to be a long ride.

Stock up while you can.

Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/nationwide-ammunition-shortage-hits-us/

URLs in this post:
[1] 2007 blog entry: http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/237760.php
[2] university police forces: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335191,00.html
[3] with good reason: http://pajamasmedia.com../../../../../blog/second-amendment-under-fire-gun-ownership-in-the-obama-er

[4] Sierra Bullets: http://www.sierrabullets.com/
[5] Federal Premium: http://www.federalpremium.com/
[6] ATK: http://www.atk.com/Customer_Solutions_ArmamentSystems/cs_as_default.asp
[7] PMC Ammunition: http://www.pmcammo.com/
Little late but;

Thanks for the links folks. Especially that little blurb on Texas vs. Canada crimes rates per 100 000. That's a nice little doozie I look forward to using.
Here is the text of a letter from Wendy Cukier of the Coalition for Gun Control who is trying to derails Garry Breitkreuz's private memeber's bill C-301.  It might be helpful for concerned persons to write letters of support for the bill to the leaders of all the parties, whether government or not - she certainaly has.



Friday, March 6, 2009
The Right Honourable Stephen Harper
Prime Minister of Canada
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON

Re : Do not dismantle gun control. Defeat Bill C-301 on April 1, 2009 Dear Sir,

The signatories to this letter are deeply concerned about Conservative MP Garry Breitkreuz’s Private Member Bill C-301, which will relax controls on restricted and prohibited guns (including handguns, assault weapons and machine guns) as well as eliminate the registration of rifles and shotguns. Please ensure your party defeats this proposed legislation at second reading on April 1, 2009.

You have stated your commitment to ending violence against women, most recently in the letter many of us received on December 6th 2008. Our gun law is not only a monument to those who were killed on December 6, 1989 at l’École Polytechnique, but is recognized worldwide as an effective tool for reducing gun violence targeting women. Commitment to ending violence against women requires more than wearing a white ribbon on December 6th. As the 20th anniversary of the Montreal massacre approaches, it would be a travesty if the party you lead helps dismantle the gun law we all worked so hard to pass.

Our laws have made Canada safer.
· In 1991, more than 1400 Canadians were killed with guns. Now it is fewer than 800.
· The 2007 rate of murders with rifles and shotguns has dropped by more than 78% from 1991.
· Murders of women with guns have plummeted from 85 in 1991 to 32 in
2004 (the numbers of
murders without guns have not dropped as significantly).

· Suicide rates, particularly among youth, have also declined.
Policing, public health and victims’ organizations across Canada – including those from Polytechnique and Dawson College - support sensible gun control. On behalf of millions of women in Canada, so do we. As the Alberta Court of Appeal noted, gun control is a women’s
issue: women represent a small
percentage of Canada’s 2 million gun owners. But they account for a high percentage of the victims of gun violence.

Mandatory screening, licensing and renewal for all firearm owners as well as registration of all firearms are important measures for protecting the safety of women.
Renewable licenses reduce
the risk that individuals with a history of domestic violence will have access to firearms.
Registration ensures that the police can take preventative action. The proposed law extends the licensing period for 10 years for all gun owners (including those who own handguns and assault weapons), reducing the opportunities for review and ensuring that information is up to date. Canada’s licensing system, with spousal renewal, is essential for the safety of women.
Do not help undermine it and jeopardize our safety and the safety of our children.

Continued from page 1

Rifles and shotguns are the firearms most often used to kill women and children in domestic violence. Access to a firearm is the fifth leading predictor of female homicide in domestic violence. The proposed law also eliminates the requirement to register rifles and shotguns. The Supreme Court underscored the importance of registration as a means of enforcing the licensing provisions of the law. If a licensed owner can buy as many guns as they want without having their name associated with the guns through the registry, there is little to prevent them from giving those guns to individuals without licenses.
Information about the guns
individuals owns is essential to enforcing prohibition orders and supporting preventative action by Canada’s police agencies; they currently use the registry 9400 times per day. There are many powerful semi-automatic firearms currently classified as unrestricted firearms, including the Ruger Mini-14 used at Polytechnique. Repeatedly, inquests into the murders of women and children recommended the licensing of gun owners and registration of guns to prevent further tragedies.

There is no place for military and tactical weapons in the hands of civilians. Almost 400,000 Canadians signed a petition calling for a ban on these weapons and most countries in the world prohibit civilian possession of fully automatic and semi automatic weapons. The shooting at Dawson college taught us a bitter lesson =E
2 that the lists of prohibited
firearms have not been
updated since the law passed in 1995. We want more control on these weapons, not less. Bill
C-301 relaxes controls allowing fully automatic weapons to be taken to shooting ranges.
Canadian women continue to support overwhelmingly the licensing of gun owners and registration of all firearms. Polls have shown that while half of gun owners opposed the law, 77% of people living with a gun owner supported it. Women are rightly concerned about access to rifles and shotguns in cases of domestic violence and suicide:

· 88% of Canadian women killed with guns are killed with a shotgun or rifle, the very guns that opponents of the law say are not the cause of gun violence;

·Access to guns is the fifth highest of 18 risk factors in spousal homicides; · 50% of family homicides end in the suicide of the murderer, indicating that the key to protecting women and children is thorough screening in licensing and licence renewals for gun owners; ·When guns are used there are more likely to be multiple victims, often children; ·Although opposition to gun control is stronger where rates of gun ownership are higher (particularly in rural and western communities), women and children are particularly at risk from guns in the home in these areas.

Let us be clear: the stakes could not be higher for Canadian women.
Ending violence against women

requires more than talk. It requires action. We urge you to lead your party to reduce violence and suicide in our families and our communities, by defeating Bill C-301 on April 1.
Signatories listed on attached page.

Continued from page 2

Signing in opposition to Bill C301:
Karen Dempsey Paulette Senior
President CEO
National Council of Women of Canada YWCA of Canada Susan Russell Michele Landsberg Executive Director Writer Canadian Federation of University Women PROVINCIAL / COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS Jan Reimer Provincial Co-ordinator Alberta Council of Women's Shelters Edmonton, AB Hélène Cornellier Coordonnatrice du plan d'action et des communications AFEAS (Association féminine d’éducation et d’action sociale) Montreal, QC Sadeqa Siddiqui Coordonnatrice Centre Comm. des Femmes Sud-Asiatique Montréal, QC Réjean Parent President Centrale syndicats du Québec Montréal, QC Viviane Doré-Nadeau ConcertAction Femmes Estrie Sherbrooke, QC Sylvie Haviernick Founder Fond. du 6 décembre contre la violence Montréal, QC Tanya Moulun Executive Officer Grande Cache Transition House Society Grande Cache, AB Marylaine Léger Director Pleins Pouvoirs KIDPOWER Montreal Montréal QC Leslie Tutty RESOLVE Calgary, AB Judy Rebick CAW-Sam Gindin Chair in Social Justice and Democracy Ryerson University Toronto, ON Yvette Houle Executive Director Dr. Margaret Sava ge Crisis Centre Cold Lake, AB Leanne Wruck Acting Director U. of Alberta Sexual Assault Centre Edmonton, Alberta Marilou McPhedran Principal, Global College University of Winnipeg Heather McGregor CEO YWCA Toronto Toronto, ON

And here is her letter to the leader of the official opposition.



for Gun Control / pour le contrôle des armes www.guncontrol.ca

March 4, 2009
Mr. Michael Ignatieff
Leader, Liberal Party of Canada
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6

Re: Opposition Votes will Help Private Members Bill C-301 Pass, Dismantling Gun Registry and Relaxing Controls on Restricted Weapons (Handguns and Semi Automatic Assault Weapons) and Prohibited Fully Automatic Assault Weapons.

Dear Mr. Ignatieff,

As you know, Conservative MP Gary Breitkreuz introduced the Private Member Bill C-301 on February 9,
2009 aimed at eliminating the registration of long guns, extending the length of licenses for all firearms and weakening other controls on restricted and prohibited guns. While the Bloc Quebecois has promised to oppose the Bill, the Conservatives claim that they will have enough support from Liberal and NDP backbenchers to pass the law. Please ensure that your party votes against C-301 at second reading on April 1. I apologize for the length of this letter but we feel it is important to lay out the arguments in some detail and I am not certain we will be able to meet with you before you make important decisions.

Our correspondence to you on January 26, 2009, reiterated the key points of our discussion with you during the leadership campaign. We are grateful for your support of the existing firearm law and for pressing for additional measures. As you know, while  Harper suggests that handguns are already “virtually banned” there are half a million legally owned handguns in Canada and 60,000 have been added to the stock since he was elected.

All illegal guns begin as legal guns. One third of handguns recovered in crime in Toronto are diverted from licensed Canadian owners and most Canadians want more gun control, not less. In addition, while Harper suggests that “duck guns” – unrestricted rifles and shotguns – are not a problem, evidence shows clearly that these are the guns most likely to be used in domestic violence, accidents, and suicide, particularly among youth. These are the guns most often used to kill police officers. Strengthening the laws has resulted in a substantial decline in firearm death and injury, which is why major police, health and women’s groups across the country support the law. The terrible irony is that where there are more guns – particularly in rural areas and the west – there is more opposition to gun control.
At the same time, the rates of gun death and injury in rural areas and the west are higher – precisely because there are more guns readily available.
All guns are potentially dangerous. All gun owners need to be licensed and all guns need to be registered.
Gun owners need to be held accountable for their firearms. It was the much-maligned registry that allowed a rifle left at the scene of the murder of 4 RCMP officers to be traced, resulting in the conviction for seconddegree murder of two accomplices. The powerful Ruger Mini 14 used to shoot 28 people at Montreal’s Ecole Polytechnique, killing 14 young women, is still sold as an unrestricted “duck gun”.

Coalition for Gun Control supporters include Canada’s major public health and safety organizations such as the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Public Health Association, the Canada Safety Council, the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, the victims of Polytechnique and Dawson Gun Control Committee as well as over 300 provincial and local organizations who are united in defending sensible gun control. But the proposed law does far more than dismantle the registration of rifles and shotguns. It also relaxes controls on the owners of all guns, including restricted weapons making it easier to get handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons like the one used at Dawson College. It will even allow prohibited weapons - including fully automatic weapons which have been prohibited since
1977 - to be taken to shooting ranges for target shooting.
Specifically, Bill C-301 proposes to:

1) Relax controls on owners of all guns, including restricted weapons (principally handguns and some semi-automatic tactical and military assault weapons like the Berretta CX4 Storm used at Dawson College). Many semi-automatic militar y and tactical weapons not suited for target shooting and banned in other countries are being sold to civilians in Canada. Not only does this bill eliminate many controls on rifles and shotguns but it relaxes the controls on these weapons.
· It allows licensed owners to get as many restricted weapons (handguns and restricted semiautomatic tactical or military weapons) as they want over a period of 10 years without the requirement to receive approval from the Chief Firearms Officer (CFO); · It removes the requirement to obtain CFO’s approval to transport restricted guns; · It will increase sales of handguns and restricted firearms (such as the Beretta CX4 Storm used at Dawson College) and increase the potential for diversion to illegal use through theft or other diversion methods. The Coroner’s report into the Dawson College shooting recommended that guns such as the Beretta CX4 Storm be banned, a measure supported by your party in the last election.
· Currently there are 450,635 restricted guns (handguns and semi-automatic tactical and military weapons). Although many Canadians support stronger controls over these guns, since 2005, 60,000 additional handguns and other restricted weapons have been registered in Canada. Handguns which were at one time legally owned in Canada account for about 1/3 of handguns recovered in crime including the high profile murder of Jane Creba on Boxing Day 2005 ; · Legal owners of restricted guns have been implicated in many high profile shootings, including the
1992 Concordia University shooting, several domestic violence cases including the 1996 Vernon
(B.C) massacre, the 2006 Dawson College shooting and the shooting of John O’Keefe on Toronto’s Yonge St. in January 2008.

2) The bill would repeal the ban on the Authorizations To Transport
(ATT) prohibited long guns
(military assault weapons including fully automatics such as the AK-47) by proposing to allow fully automatic machine guns, prohibited handguns and semi-automatic assault weapons to be taken to civilian ranges.
· Fully automatic assault weapons have been prohibited since 1977; semi-automatic firearms which could be converted to fully automatic fire and converted automatic firearms were prohibited by the Conservatives in 1991; semi automatic military weapons were prohibited in 1995; · While these guns were banned because they are “not reasonably” used in hunting, owners were allowed to keep them. There are 210,407 prohibited firearms in Canada including prohibited handguns; · Military assault weapons are not designed for hunting or target shooting but for killing people during combat; · Currently, as per the 1995 legislation, prohibited semi-automatic assault weapons were allowed to be taken to civilian target shooting ranges on a one-off basis as per the Special Authorization to Possess =0 A(which ceased to be issued around 2004). All other prohibited long guns were not allowed for target shooting except on Department of Defence Ranges.

3) The legislation extends the term of all gun licenses to 10-12 years for all gun owners (including owners of restricted and prohibited firearms).
Experts have argued for stronger screening, not less. Regular renewals of licenses ensure risks are reviewed and information is kept up to date. This is critical to:
· Keep guns out of the hands of individuals who represent a threat to themselves or others through spousal notification, a reference check and assessment of risk factors associated with violence; · Ensure that the information on record in the registry – name, address etc. - is accurate. Failures to do so have had tragic consequences (for example in the case of Laval police officer Daniel Tessier); · The licensing and renewal process accounts for the bulk of the costs associated with the firearms program, in part, because $56.5 million in fees have been waived or refunded by the Conservatives.

4) The Bill ends the registration of long guns such as rifles and shotguns in spite of the fact that police insist that they need this information to keep guns out of the wrong hands.

While handguns are a major problem in urban centres, rifles and shotguns are the firearms most often used to kill, particularly in rural areas. Rifles and shotguns acc ount for a significant proportion of guns seized in crime, even in Toronto. Almost 5000 guns are stolen annually in Canada, by definition ending up in the hands of criminals. Most of the costs of the registry are associated with licensing gun owners. The registration of guns is one time only. The RCMP estimates that eliminating long gun registration will save a mere $2.9 million annually.

Stronger controls on rifles and shotguns have improved public safety:
· Police support the registry and use it more than 9,400 times each day; · Gun deaths had declined significantly: 500 fewer Canadians are killed with guns each year than in 1991. The 2007 rate of murders with rifles and shotguns has dropped by more than 78% from 1991.
Murders of women with guns have plummeted from 85 in 1991 to 32 in 2004 (murders without guns have not).
· The Conservatives’ amnesty for those who fail to register their guns or renew their licenses has had serious consequences: charges were stayed against a man accused of being an accessory to the murder of police officers in Spiritwood, Sask in 2006.

The June 2000 unanimous Supreme Court of Canada stated: “The registration provisions cannot be severed  from the rest of the Act. (…) These portions of the Firearms Act are both tightly linked to Parliament’s goal of promoting safety by reducing the misuse of any and all firearms. Both portions are integ ral and necessary to the operation of the scheme.”

The Conservatives have focused on catering to the interests of the gun lobby rather than to the experts in policing and public safety. There are about 2 million gun owners in Canada. Most of them have obtained licenses and registered their guns. In spite of Harper’s amnesty, more than 80% of gun owners have renewed their licenses. The gun lobby may be vocal and well resourced, but polling has shown that even as half of gun owners say that they oppose the law, 77% of people living with gun owners support it. Women, in particular, even in rural areas and the west support this law. I am sure you will be hearing from them along with police, health care professionals and victims of gun violence.

Canada’s law has been cited as a model of effective legislation worldwide, particularly in combating violence against women. The recently announced European Firearms directive will establish uniform standards for all EU countries, including the registration of all firearms. At a time when the rest of the world is strengthening its laws in an effort to combat the illegal gun trade and misuse of firearms, it would be a tragedy for Canada to move in the opposite direction.

We believe that the Conservative strategy is intended to make the opposition parties bear responsibility for dismantling gun control in Canada. I am sure you are very busy but I would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you again to discuss this, in the hopes that the Liberal Party of Canada will take a strong, firm and vocal position to oppose Bill C-301. Please contact us at (416) 766-4804 to schedule a meeting.

Yours truly,
Wendy Cukier, President, Coalition for Gun Control
Here is some really bad news if you thought that the Conservatives were going to make a serious attempt at fixing the firearms legislation.  It looks to me like the PMO has pressured Breitkreuz to gut his bill so that most of the useful provisions will be gone.


Posted on March 19, 2009

Like many Canadians, I oppose the failed long gun registry as unfairly
targeting law-abiding farmers and hunters, while not addressing the criminal
use of firearms.

At the time of its introduction in 1995, the Liberal government estimated
the net cost to taxpayers would only be $2 million. The Canadian Taxpayers
Federation now estimate the cost to be in excess of $2 billion - an
unprecedented waste of taxpayer money.

I have recently introduced a Private Member's Bill (C-301) in the House of
Commons to repeal the failed long gun registry. Bill C-301 contains a
handful of other measures not directly related to the long gun registry
itself. I do not see these measures as central to my long-standing goal of
ending the long gun registry. When Parliament resumes, I will seek changes
to remove these sections from my bill.


NOTE: Upon reading this statement, Dennis Young immediately resigned his
part-time job working for MP Garry Breitkreuz.
Well, the Breitkreuz, CSSA, hangun giveaway in Toronto fiasco certainly didn't help. Nothing like pointing spotlights and microscopes just before the bill comes up for second reading. The antis couldn't have made a better plan themselves.

Sometimes I think we're our own worst enemy.
This bill was an omnibus trying to do too much too fast - focusing on the long gun registry and highlighting to the masses that it is useless is a good start.  Then they can start getting rid of the ATT system, because Breitkreuz's own research proves it is useless bureaucracy - each fiefdom applies the rules differently but in the end virtually no ATT is turned down, so I fail to see the point as do most owners.  Cukier et all play on the ignorance of the masses.  In order to win people over to a happy medium that works for all we have to start demystifying the rules and what firearms are all about.  Scaremongering like the Coalition for Gun Control does can only be beaten with fact.

As for the CSSA giveaway, I'm pretty disappointed that got into the media and got spun the way it did, but such is life.
Redeye said:
This bill was an omnibus trying to do too much too fast - focusing on the long gun registry and highlighting to the masses that it is useless is a good start.  Then they can start getting rid of the ATT system, because Breitkreuz's own research proves it is useless bureaucracy - each fiefdom applies the rules differently but in the end virtually no ATT is turned down, so I fail to see the point as do most owners.  Cukier et all play on the ignorance of the masses.  In order to win people over to a happy medium that works for all we have to start demystifying the rules and what firearms are all about.  Scaremongering like the Coalition for Gun Control does can only be beaten with fact.

As for the CSSA giveaway, I'm pretty disappointed that got into the media and got spun the way it did, but such is life.

The first step is to remind people that the Coalition for Gun Control does not seek to control guns, rather to eliminate them altogether.
NFA Official Response to Proposed Amendments to Bill C-301


To Canada’s Responsible Firearms Owners

The National Firearms Association has learned that substantive changes to Bill C-301 have been ordered. It is our opinion that these changes will have a wholly negative impact on our rights as responsible firearm owners.

The original Bill C-301 had our qualified support, as we interpreted it as a good first step toward eliminating the most onerous aspects of Bill C-68 and C-17 - With the understanding that more substantive positive changes were in the offing.

At present, we do not anticipate that we will realize any substantive positive result from the passage of Bill C-301, if amended. We are of the opinion that the long-term interests of Canadian firearm owners will not be best served by acceptance of the terms of this amended legislation.

As we publicly stated earlier, any substantive changes to the provisions of Bill C-301 would require the National Firearms Association to reassess our support. After careful consideration of this issue and the potential negative ramifications for firearm owners, the National Firearms Association has determined that we cannot support a revised and stripped Bill C-301.

While this issue has understandably become politically sensitive the National Firearms Association is of the opinion that a positive result may still be possible with the judicious application of public pressure from the firearms community. Canadian firearms owners have always been among the most vocal, ardent and dedicated of the Conservative Party of Canada’s supporters. Unfortunately, we find ourselves in the position of having to remind the Harper Government of that fact.

As such, we are urging all firearm owners to get active and to take immediate steps to let Prime Minister Harper, Public Safety Minister van Loan and MP Garry Breitkruez know where you stand as a responsible firearms owner!

If you want to help solve the C-301 problem this is what you need to do:

1. Write, fax, call and e-mail Prime Minister Stephen Harper at:

Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada K1A 0A2

Telephone:                613-992-4211       

Fax: 613-941-6900

E-mail: pm@pm.gc.ca
E-mail: HarpeS@parl.gc.ca

Write, fax, call and E-mail Public Safety Minister Peter van Loan at:

House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada K1A 0A6

Telephone:                613-996-7752       

Fax: 613-992-8351

E-mail: VanLoP@parl.gc.ca

Write, fax, call and E-mail MP Garry Breitkreuz at:

Ottawa Office
Room 685, ConfederationBuilding
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada K1A 0A6

Telephone:                613-992-4394       

Fax: 613-992-8676

Email: breitg@parl.gc.ca

2. Politely, but firmly indicate your opposition to any revisions to Bill C-301. Drive home the point that as a voter and responsible firearms owner that you do not want Bill C-301 amended to remove everything but registration and that all the provisions in that bill that support the rights of lawful firearms owners are important to you.

3. If you are a current Conservative Party of Canada member, volunteer or financial contributor say so. I can't stress this enough!

4. Be sure to carbon copy your own Member of Parliament, in addition to the Prime Minister, Public Safety Minister van Loan & MP Garry Breitkreuz.

Write your own MP at:

MP's Name Here
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada K1A 0A6

For complete contact info for all MPs click on:


5. Advise your favorite pro-firearms rights organization of the responses that you receive and make sure that the executives of your local gun club, shooting range and fellow hunters, shooters and gun owners are aware of the issue and to get them involved!

In the interim, please be assured that the National Firearms Association will continue working all lines of communication with Government and other key stakeholders, and will continue to utilize all available assets in our efforts to gather critical information and to get this bill back on track.


Sean Penney
Vice-President, Communications
Canada's National Firearms Association

"Canada's firearms voice in Ottawa"

The Aims of the NFA are:

* To promote, support, and protect all safe recreational firearms activities.

* To promote, support, and protect all educational firearms activities.

* To promote natural justice for all firearms activities.

* To serve and inform responsible owners and users of recreational firearms.

I finally got a chance to use the info you guys gave me in my 'Violence and Society' class last night when the topic just so happened to be guns and gun related violence. I'll spare you the details about the articles that were covered, but I did get some good points in at my prof and the anti-gun crowd.

You folks wouldn't believe that amount of mis-information people have about our current gun laws. After I gave a run-down of current laws and regulations (in response to the typical "our laws aren't strict enough") I get lots of "ohh....I didn't know that".

Anyways, I'm feeling mighty proud of myself for that. So your all welcome for fighting the good fight (again) here on campus.  ;)
More on where the center of effort should be made:


Gun control restricts those least likely to commit violent crimes
By Don Kates
Special to the Examiner 4/6/09

The March 21 murder of four Oakland police officers by Lovelle Mixon, a convicted felon wanted for a recent parole violation, epitomizes the futility of “gun control,” or the banning and restricting of gun ownership for law-abiding adults. Using the officers’ tragic deaths to further an unrelated agenda — stripping away the Second Amendment rights of honorable citizens — is both harmful and distracting.
Mixon was not an anomaly. Felons commit over 90 percent of murders, with the remainder carried out primarily by juveniles and the mentally unbalanced. The United States already has laws forbidding all three groups from owning guns, which, by definition, are ineffective against the lawless. “Gun control,” therefore, only “controls” those who have done nothing to merit such regulations.

Arguments for gun control rest on deceptive claims such as National Coalition to Ban Handguns’ allegation that “most murders are committed by previously law-abiding citizens.” Americans are deluged by literally dozens of supposedly scholarly articles asserting such falsehoods — but with no supporting references. For there are none.

Notably, only 15 percent of all Americans have criminal records, yet more than 90 percent of murder suspects have a history of crime. Their criminal careers average six or more years’ length, including four major adult felonies, in addition to their often extensive juvenile records.

A New York Times study of the 1,662 murders in that city between 2003 and 2005 found that “more than 90 percent of the killers had criminal records.” Baltimore police records show similar statistics for its murder suspects in 2006. In Milwaukee, police reported that most murder suspects in 2007 had criminal records, while “a quarter of them [killed while] on probation or parole.” The great majority of Illinois murderers from the years 1991-2000 had prior felony records. Eighty percent of Atlanta murder arrestees had previously been arrested at least once for a drug offense; 70 percent had three or more prior drug arrests — in addition to their arrests for other crimes.

In sum, guns or no guns, neither most murderers nor many murderers — nor virtually any murderers — are ordinary, law-abiding, responsible adults. This conclusion is so invariably reached by homicide studies that the 1998 study by David Kennedy and Anthony Braga describes the fact that murderers are almost invariably veteran criminals as a standard “criminological axiom.”

Naïve, well-meaning people often respond to such facts with, “Still, wouldn’t this be a better world without guns?” After many years of studying guns as a highly effective method of self-defense, I reply, no, the world would be immeasurably worse off without the only weaponry that gives the weak a real chance against predators. After all, there was a time, hundreds of years ago, when there were no guns. Without guns for self-defense, survival was measured by the strength of men’s arms, as women, children and the elderly huddled in terror, escaping only by abject submission to their predators. Yes, Mixon used a gun to kill four Oakland police officers. But had he not been shot and killed by another member of the SWAT team, the death toll would have been undoubtedly higher. In the hands of sworn officers and moral citizens, guns are a powerful, swift means of protection. When the government passes laws that only peaceable people obey, they are simply leaving the same people at the mercy of violent predators.

Don B. Kates is a research fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland and a criminologist and former professor of criminal and constitutional law.
Not open for further replies.