PDA

View Full Version : Conservatives made deal to quiet dissent on C-51, gun group says



Doug_M
09-16-2015, 05:42 PM
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/conservatives-made-deal-to-quiet-dissent-on-c-51-gun-group-says/


C-51 dissent by gun group quieted under Conservative deal
Laura Payton September 16, 2015

http://www.macleans.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/MAC39_C51_POST01.jpg
Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney (left) shakes hands with Justice Minister Peter MacKay as they leave the Senate Chambers after Royal Assent of several bills on Thursday, June 18, 2015. (Fred Chartrand/CP)

The president of the National Firearms Association says the Conservative government offered to make changes to its gun licensing bill if the NFA held its fire on the controversial bill C-51, then reneged on the agreement.

Sheldon Clare, who is running as an independent candidate in British Columbia’s Cariboo-Prince George riding, posted the details of the alleged arrangement to quell dissent about C-51 on his Facebook page Monday. Clare said the NFA’s opposition to C-51, which became law in June, was well known, and that there were “great legal minds” already arguing for changes. But the organization also decided to cancel its committee appearance to discuss C-51 because the government offered to make changes to C-42, another bill that worried the NFA.

A lawyer for the NFA had been scheduled to appear before the House public safety committee last March, along with Open Media, another opponent of the bill. C-51 gave sweeping police powers to Canada’s intelligence agencies and offers no corresponding increase in oversight, raising the ire of privacy advocates.

At the time, no one from the NFA—including Clare—would say why the group cancelled, leaving Open Media scrambling to find a replacement. Open Media, which tends to be embraced by the left, wanted to show the breadth of opposition to C-51 by appearing with a more right-leaning witness. Open Media’s Steve Anderson eventually appeared along with Connie Fournier, who founded the Free Dominion website, which describes itself as a forum for the discussion of conservative philosophy and activism​.

But Clare is now going public about the backroom deal.

http://www.macleans.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Screen-Shot-2015-09-16-at-12.44.18-PM.png

“We had been promised that the CPC would give us the four amendments that we sought on C-42 [a bill making changes to firearms licensing] if we didn’t go to that hearing. We were asked not to be used by the NDP as a stick to beat up the CPC,” he wrote on Facebook.

The NFA agreed, Clare wrote, but soon felt betrayed when the Conservatives didn’t invite the organization to present its amendments on C-42, which streamlined gun licensing and provided a six-month grace period for lapsed licenses. C-42 also brought in mandatory gun prohibitions for violent offenders and domestic assaults.

“In short, we were lied to by the Conservatives about that deal,” Clare wrote, naming Mark Johnson, the director of parliamentary affairs in Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney’s office.

Clare says Kory Teneycke, the party spokesman travelling with Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, confirmed to him personally that the “NFA had been played, and that the government saw no need to honour its commitment on C42 to us.”

“Both the NFA and I personally have always opposed C51 and continue to do so. At the time, we believed that the government would honour its commitment, and so we remained silent on the matter. There is no need to do so any longer.”

One of the irritants tackled in C-42 moved gun classification decisions to cabinet from the RCMP. The Mounties had caused a commotion in the gun community by reclassifying the Swiss Arms Classic Green rifle as a prohibited weapon.

Clare wrote in the same Facebook posting that Johnson, in Blaney’s office, confirmed to him that the public safety minister signed off on the reclassification, “only reversing and blaming the police after the NFA revealed that information and led the effort to reverse that decision.”

Johnson and Teneycke did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Clare’s leadership of the NFA was challenged last February, with several of the NFA’s provincial directors voting to remove him as president. Clare and several other members of the board weren’t present at the meeting, which seemed to stem from the firing of executive vice-president Shawn Bevins. Bevins has since joined a rival organization, the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights.

Doug_M
09-16-2015, 05:45 PM
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RifJSLhEZ7E/hqdefault.jpg


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

kennymo
09-16-2015, 06:03 PM
Still not regretting tossing that renewal in the trash.....

Pizzed
09-16-2015, 06:07 PM
I have to wonder what Clare's end game is - because I don't think there will be a politician left in Ottawa who will speak to the man. The NFA will be persona non grata.

blacksmithden
09-16-2015, 06:10 PM
I have to wonder what Clare's end game is - because I don't think there will be a politician left in Ottawa who will speak to the man. The NFA will be persona non grata.

WILL be ? I think that ship sailed a long time ago.

TJSpeller
09-16-2015, 06:24 PM
The NFA is so finished. Clare has turned out to be a one man wrecking crew.

Pizzed
09-16-2015, 06:28 PM
WILL be ? I think that ship sailed a long time ago.I don't know to the extent that the NFA burnt bridges in other incidents but going public with this kind of crap will leave them on the outside for the foreseeable future They need an Executive overhaul.

Strewth
09-16-2015, 06:28 PM
Still not regretting tossing that renewal in the trash.....
This,

I have to wonder what Clare's end game is - because I don't think there will be a politician left in Ottawa who will speak to the man. The NFA will be persona non grata.

and this.

Well played, Mr. Clare. Class act all the way. No bridges being burnt there. I wonder if the fact that you were busy helping implode the NFA had anything to do with the fact that the CPC wanted nothing to do with your amendments...which were? NR ARs? Full cap mags? Publicly palatable gifts like these on the eve of an election, perhaps?

soulchaser
09-16-2015, 06:40 PM
I don't know to the extent that the NFA burnt bridges in other incidents but going public with this kind of crap will leave them on the outside for the foreseeable future They need an Executive overhaul.

Harper holds grudges like nobody else I've ever seen.

The NFA WAS ignored. They are now officially dead in Ottawa. Clare just put the final nail in their coffin. A change in leadership won't help anything.
This is his parting shot like Chretien changing the donation laws to f--k over Martin.

Zinilin
09-16-2015, 06:54 PM
Curious, many of the same people here that say that the only way to effect change is to become involved; are some of the same people that abandoned the NFA rather then getting further involved, voting in a new leadership and improving the lobby group.
The latest release of the Canadian Firearms journal is complete departure from the past tone and branding.

The new editor Al Voth (http://www.westernsportsman.com/writer/al-voth/) seems ready and able to fix the messaging eliminating from this organization.

Mandatory Reload Paperback – October 30, 2001 by Al Voth (http://www.amazon.com/Mandatory-Reload-Al-Voth/dp/0968505015/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1442450873&sr=1-1&keywords=Al+Voth)

B-Zone : a Novel of the Gun Paperback – June 15, 1999 by Al Voth (http://www.amazon.com/B-Zone-Novel-Gun-Al-Voth/dp/0968505007/ref=sr_1_3/178-5686024-6657149?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1442450725&sr=1-3&keywords=Al+Voth)

Doug_M
09-16-2015, 07:01 PM
Curious, many of the same people here that say that the only way to effect change is to become involved; are some of the same people that abandoned the NFA rather then getting further involved, voting in a new leadership and improving the lobby group.

A fair question. This isn't the NFA's first meltdown and it may be impossible to come back from their persona non grata status. In the famous words of George W.

“There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.”


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Swampdonkey
09-16-2015, 07:44 PM
As much as the NFA has become a joke, it also shows how badly the CPC acted with C-51.

The Joe-Man
09-16-2015, 09:06 PM
This,


and this.

Well played, Mr. Clare. Class act all the way. No bridges being burnt there. I wonder if the fact that you were busy helping implode the NFA had anything to do with the fact that the CPC wanted nothing to do with your amendments...which were? NR ARs? Full cap mags? Publicly palatable gifts like these on the eve of an election, perhaps?

According to meeting minutes, the NFA was proposing these changes to C-42:

a) CFSC – remove clause that would end ability to challenge test
b) Ensure A.T.T. was continued to have Canada-wide validity
c) Change A.T.T. scheme – to only excluding full auto actions
d) Scope of mandatory current firearms prohibition -
Solomon provided a detailed explanation. Current clause includes too many convictions –
exclude folks who do not have a violent criminal charge for assault. If not sentenced to custody
or discharged then the judge should have discretion to make a prohibition for a serious offence

Strewth
09-16-2015, 09:23 PM
According to meeting minutes, the NFA was proposing these changes to C-42:

a) CFSC – remove clause that would end ability to challenge test
b) Ensure A.T.T. was continued to have Canada-wide validity
c) Change A.T.T. scheme – to only excluding full auto actions
d) Scope of mandatory current firearms prohibition -
Solomon provided a detailed explanation. Current clause includes too many convictions –
exclude folks who do not have a violent criminal charge for assault. If not sentenced to custody
or discharged then the judge should have discretion to make a prohibition for a serious offence

Oh, those aren't too bad, my apologies to Mr. Claire then. Although from my perspective:

a) CFSC – remove clause that would end ability to challenge test - Can't see the CPC agreeing to this, it's one of the things that they can point to to offset the incremental freedoms granted in C42

b) Ensure A.T.T. was continued to have Canada-wide validity - This one makes sense, can't see any political blowback here.

c) Change A.T.T. scheme – to only excluding full auto actions - Probably no, this would allow trumpeting of "prohibited weapons aloed on te street!!!" by dimwits with a Twitter account.

d) Scope of mandatory current firearms prohibition - I think this is the way the CPC is leaning, and hopes to achieve; it should have happened this time, I agree.

Foxer
09-16-2015, 11:35 PM
Curious, many of the same people here that say that the only way to effect change is to become involved; are some of the same people that abandoned the NFA rather then getting further involved, voting in a new leadership and improving the lobby group.
The latest release of the Canadian Firearms journal is complete departure from the past tone and branding.

The new editor Al Voth (http://www.westernsportsman.com/writer/al-voth/) seems ready and able to fix the messaging eliminating from this organization.

Mandatory Reload Paperback – October 30, 2001 by Al Voth (http://www.amazon.com/Mandatory-Reload-Al-Voth/dp/0968505015/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1442450873&sr=1-1&keywords=Al+Voth)

B-Zone : a Novel of the Gun Paperback – June 15, 1999 by Al Voth (http://www.amazon.com/B-Zone-Novel-Gun-Al-Voth/dp/0968505007/ref=sr_1_3/178-5686024-6657149?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1442450725&sr=1-3&keywords=Al+Voth)

Involved is good, always. However - with any group there can come a time for the 'nuclear option'. That time when there's literally nothing left to work with, and the only real option is to burn things to the ground and suffer the pain of having to build from scratch. It's rare, and it's to be avoided. But it's also important to have the strength to do it when it IS necessary.

For example - there came a time when we realized there would NEVER be any 'working with' the old PC party. Not as westerners, not as gun owners, and not as conservatives. So - we pulled that plug. We had to. Ten years of darkness followed and it was bad times, but it was worth it and it was necessary.

Now we're in that position with the NFA. There's nothing to recover there.

And it's interesting that you preach trying to work with a dead org when you're so fast to call anyone who talks about working with the CPC who actually does things for us an 'apologist'.

Maple Leaf Pilgrim
09-16-2015, 11:46 PM
Where is the evidence to back up his claims?

-S.

Doug_M
09-17-2015, 03:49 AM
According to meeting minutes, the NFA was proposing these changes to C-42:

a) CFSC – remove clause that would end ability to challenge test
b) Ensure A.T.T. was continued to have Canada-wide validity
c) Change A.T.T. scheme – to only excluding full auto actions
d) Scope of mandatory current firearms prohibition -
Solomon provided a detailed explanation. Current clause includes too many convictions –
exclude folks who do not have a violent criminal charge for assault. If not sentenced to custody
or discharged then the judge should have discretion to make a prohibition for a serious offence

Yup, those were them. But the reason I believe the NFA was shut out of the C-42 hearings was that it was a direct result of the very public internal fight (Clare vs The Rebel 5) going on at the time. The NFA was in full implode mode and it had been reported on in the MSM a few times. Which is a real shame because the above are not only valid but very desired changes to C-42. So IMHO the blame for the hearings "snub" is shared with the "Rebel 5" as much as Clare.

Zinilin
09-17-2015, 07:06 AM
And it's interesting that you preach trying to work with a dead org when you're so fast to call anyone who talks about working with the CPC who actually does things for us an 'apologist'.

An apologist is someone that is blind to the errors of their cause, like you and the CPC (C-42, C-51).
Unlike an apologist I acknowledge the failings of the NFA and see that the changes they may make could correct their failings.

I never asked anyone to work with the NFA, I was only pointing out the hypocrisy of your position; but I don't expect you to see anything wrong with you or your attitude

Sorry if I offended your reflection.
You may now respond with smiley cloaked insults, demeaning statements, and ridicule. (Attack the messenger, not the message)

Billythreefeathers
09-17-2015, 07:30 AM
I doubt there was any 'backroom' deal,, and if there was it was probably in Sheldon's imagination

The NFA can't die fast enough

Doug_M
09-17-2015, 07:34 AM
An apologist is someone that is blind to the errors of their cause, like you and the CPC (C-42, C-51).
Unlike an apologist I acknowledge the failings of the NFA and see that the changes they may make could correct their failings.

Whether or not C-42/C-51 are good or bad is subjective opinion. Whether or not the NFA's (mainly Clare's) actions hurt our cause is subjective opinion. Whether or not the NFA is worth salvaging or even capable of being salvaged is also subjective opinion. There is no hypocrisy. It is not as black and white as to say "you said work from within to change the CPC so you must also say work from within to change the NFA".

Foxer
09-17-2015, 08:48 AM
An apologist is someone that is blind to the errors of their cause, like you and the CPC (C-42, C-51).
Unlike an apologist I acknowledge the failings of the NFA and see that the changes they may make could correct their failings.

I never asked anyone to work with the NFA, I was only pointing out the hypocrisy of your position; but I don't expect you to see anything wrong with you or your attitude

Sorry if I offended your reflection.
You may now respond with smiley cloaked insults, demeaning statements, and ridicule. (Attack the messenger, not the message)
Nobody's blind to the problems of C 42 or C 51. They just don't get hysterical like you do, and they seek to fix things that are fixable instead of just complaining.

The difference is that those things are fixable. It's quite possible and easy to do something about them. The NFA is way beyond fixable. And it would appear that you are the only one here who is being blind. Willfully blind in pretending that The problems with legislation are insurmountable, which they are clearly not, and blind to the fact that the NFA is beyond rebuilding. Short of burning it down and starting from scratch.

As Doug said, no hypocrisy from us. Just inconsistency from you. The problem is you form your opinions based on how you wish the world would be, rather than how it is. There comes a time when we all have to grow up and realize there is no Santa Claus. Nobody likes that and it's often hard to face. But as adults, we have to look at reality not what we wish reality would be.

Swampdonkey
09-18-2015, 07:21 PM
What are the odds the CPC will revise their own legislation down the road? It looks like an admission of failure.

Foxer
09-18-2015, 07:25 PM
What are the odds the CPC will revise their own legislation down the road? It looks like an admission of failure.

They won't 'reverse' it. It's not easy to just 'reverse' legislation and the longer they go the more cumbersome that is. It's conceivable they might re-write it with new legislation but that seems unlikely any time in the foreseeable future.

Edenchef
09-18-2015, 09:02 PM
They won't 'reverse' it. It's not easy to just 'reverse' legislation and the longer they go the more cumbersome that is. It's conceivable they might re-write it with new legislation but that seems unlikely any time in the foreseeable future.

So then, the CPC will "gradually" undo what was done to us. Therefore, the "No Compromise" was just doomed from the start and NFA/Clair knew this? But he was addicted to the attention? This kind of stupid attitude is why NFA must be gone and Claire with them. Now then, Claire tries to split the vote......in his riding? For us or cause he is just an attention whore? What else do we need to prove this assh__e is just another......stupid. FUDD? He would toss all of us (gun owners) aside, in a heartbeat, for his own, personal gain. This is my personal definition of...FUDD. I even got banned for this, attitude/opinion, on this forum and calling someone on it. We are gun owners, if we do not stand together, as one, we will lose, alone.

Foxer
09-18-2015, 09:29 PM
So then, the CPC will "gradually" undo what was done to us. Therefore, the "No Compromise" was just doomed from the start and NFA/Clair knew this? Well yes and no. The whole 'repeal c-68' thing was doomed from the start, and wouldn't have given us what we wanted anyway. Remember - we had gun classifications before that, and a bunch of other things. I think c-17 was mag limits wasn't it? We don't want to go back to that, we want better. But it made a nice rally cry. It's not really possible tho, even if we did want it.

However - it wasn't doomed in the sense that if we know what we want and keep insisting on it, then yes we can get there. No Compromise originally seemed to mean that we would NEVER give up until we eventually got everything we wanted, even if it took a while and more than one re-write to get there. In THAT sense it was quite possible. But the stuff they were saying at the end? No - that was never a real thing.


But he was addicted to the attention? Probably.


Now then, Claire tries to split the vote......in his riding? For us or cause he is just an attention whore? Yes. That was really over the top - he's directly taking action to hurt our community now and not only weaken the only party that's worked with us, but tarnish the relationship between that gov't and gun owners. It's a bitter betrayal.


We are gun owners, if we do not stand together, as one, we will lose, alone.

Franklin said it first. We stand together or fall apart. There's simply no 'option c'.

Mark-II
09-19-2015, 10:32 AM
Skipped the comments in order to put my 2 cents in.

I don't believe a thing that Sheldon says about anything.

I believe, personally, that the guy is a sociopath.

Given that he has sold out the NFA to further his own personal goals I hope that we can expect a bylaw revision to prevent such conflicts of interest in future by forcing such executive officers to abdicate their position.

It seems clear that he was angling for a drop into a Tory riding.

Foxer
09-19-2015, 10:36 AM
Given that he has sold out the NFA to further his own personal goals I hope that we can expect a bylaw revision to prevent such conflicts of interest in future by forcing such executive officers to abdicate their position. The problem is that when it comes to destroying the NFA - the others involved were just as bad. Which is why the situation has deteriorated to the point it's probably not recoverable. Even if sheldon left those people are still there and based on the amended changes to their bylaws that they were proposing, they enjoy holding on to power just as much as sheldon.

So any proposed changes that would be positive are probably not going to happen.

RangeBob
09-19-2015, 10:37 AM
sociopath

that reminded me of these

Traits that are common among psychopathic serial killers -- a grandiose sense of self worth, persuasiveness, superficial charm, ruthlessness, lack of remorse, and the manipulation of others -- are also shared by politicians. Individuals in other words running not from the police. but for office. Such a profile allows those who present with these traits to do what they like when they like, completely unfazed by the social, moral, or legal consequences of their actions.
-- "The Wisdom of Psychopaths" by Dr. Kevin Dutton, Scientific American October 2012

It's [the office of President] for someone who thinks the gods have conspired to bring him to this place. That Destiny demands of him this service. If you don't have that kind of drive, that hubris, how in the hell are you going to make the kinds of decisions that stump every other person in this country.
-- Toby Ziegler, West Wing

[And no, I wouldn't vote for him]

Edward Teach
09-19-2015, 02:13 PM
I guess one guy is a gun group, just like one gun is an arsenal.

mojo88
09-19-2015, 04:25 PM
There is so much nonsense in Clare's comments...

I am led to believe that there was no deal with the CPC. Conservatives just explained to one of Clare's underlings that it was not in the interest of the firearms community to be used as pawns by the NDP, especially on an issue as important to the government as national security.

Foxer
09-19-2015, 04:35 PM
There is so much nonsense in Clare's comments...

I am led to believe that there was no deal with the CPC. Conservatives just explained to one of Clare's underlings that it was not in the interest of the firearms community to be used as pawns by the NDP, especially on an issue as important to the government as national security.

The whispers I'd heard was that there was a 'deal' being considered. Or more accurately negotiations were happening and that they were considering some of the nfa's recommendations and that they did ask the nfa to knock it off over c-51.

However - i also heard that the CPC backed right the heck off and didn't want anything to do with them after the crapstorm blew up. which is in keeping with the CPC - they cut people loose in a second if there's a hint of shameful ongoings. The last thing the CPC would have wanted would be to have their name associated with the NFA in any way while there was THAT much ammo kicking around the web.

And Sheldon does have his fair share of blame to take for all that crap (tho the others do too).

What I find distasteful is trying to bring it up now as somehow the CPC walking away from a deal in bad faith. If the stories are true at all, it's the nfa's fault that it fell apart. That kind of thing is the inevitable consequence of the horrid behavior we saw. So trying to claim the CPC are the ones who are at fault is entirely disingenuous and is all about his ego.

RangeBob
09-19-2015, 09:19 PM
What I find distasteful is trying to bring it up now as somehow the CPC walking away from a deal in bad faith.

More likely, if it existed at all, it was with a single backbencher MP, rather than the PM's Office.

I'm betting a backbencher isn't plenipotentiary.

Swampdonkey
09-20-2015, 09:08 PM
I keep my distance from unstable people, can't blame the CPC for distancing themselves from the NFA.