PDA

View Full Version : Meet Andrew Scheer - he loves bagging white tails, he is also a CPC leadership candidate!



TheProudInterior
12-19-2016, 05:08 PM
Meeting the Leadership Candidates: Guns and Politics - Andrew Scheer
CJ SUMMERS·FRIDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2016

Follow and "Like" CJ Summers to keep up to date with stories like this one! (https://www.facebook.com/CJJSummers/)

“My friends took me hunting two years ago, first time I had ever been out, I used a friends Lapua .308 (think he meant .338) and got a white tail from about 400-450 meters away - I was hooked. I have my license, I own a few firearms already - I really look forward to experiencing incredible things like this with my son now.”
-Andrew Scheer

Andrew Scheer

Opposition House Leader (2015-2016)
Speaker of the House of Commons (2011-2015)
Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons and Chairman of Committees of the Whole (2008-2011)
MP Riding of Regina-Qu’Appelle (2004-Present)



Do you think Canada’s existing gun laws need to be rewritten?
I think aspects of them do - I support my colleagues private members bill right now which would define certain aspects of the Firearms Act. It would take power away from the RCMP to make arbitrary, unilateral, reclassification's. Those are aspects that need to be implemented. My sense is - the conversations I have had about the 10/22 clip, the AR-15, that a move in this direction would alleviate a lot of these types of concerns. It may sound cliche, but criminals do not follow gun laws. They are not looking to see what safe storage laws apply or whether or not they have their ATT, they are going to do what they do - sell some drugs perhaps. We need to make sure that there is a strict regime in there on our side so they do not get careless or negligent, that needs to be addressed, but we need to make sure it is balanced.

Should the RCMP continue to be the body in charge of firearms regulation in Canada?
I like to think that we could have a different regime, I would be open to looking at other options - put it that way. I have not seen a specific proposal yet about how it could work, I do think that we need a very objective way to determine these decisions - while having the RCMP perhaps focus on the enforcement side of things.

Do you think self-defense is a legitimate reason for firearms possession?
I do not know if there is a need to justify owning a firearm. We have the right to own firearms - for me it is hunting, for others it is collecting, others feel safer if they are perhaps in a rural community with prospects of wild animals. I actually had a friend who had a bear enter his cabin. Whatever the motivation is, we do not need to justify to the government why we want to own firearms - we have the right to do so.

Do you believe the AR-15 should remain restricted?
I have heard a lot from the firearms community about this - I saw the petition at my local gun shop. If we go back to applying specific definitions and terminologies then we do not need to get into whether this gun should be restricted or not. The firearms community can be so helpful with this - a lot of politicians in Ottawa, they do not have a lot of experience in firearms so when the RCMP comes to them with a proposal or brief, they adopt it. That is where we can work with the firearms community and say, “Ok, what is the problem here - what are the concerns?” With that, we would have a much more “common sense” approach to these things.

Will you commit to removing sound suppressors from the prohibited devices list? Further to that, what are your thoughts around magazine size restrictions?
I am not in a position to make comments on those specific items. A leader of a party or caucus needs to find common ground. I think before we get into specifics of any different clauses in the criminal code, the most important thing is to tighten up the definitions, remove the subjective power from the RCMP, and just ensure that we are always focused on firearms tied to crime and not responsible gun owners. The thing about a lot of these issues, if you talk to any gun owner about this - they can have very legitimate concerns around aspects around classification. For example, sound suppressors - I have not thought about the health side until you just mentioned it, or magazine capacity - but we have a very big country with a very diverse population in those urban and rural settings. I think the community, along with myself as leader - regulations would be easier to understand, there would be broader appeal for support. We will walk before we can run - we need to understand that there is a comfort level in the larger society with some of these things. It is all about wanting to engage,consult, and listen while making sure the firearms community knows that they have someone at the table who is sympathetic and understands their concerns - not someone who would treat everyone that owns a firearm as a problem. That is the issue we get into with Liberal governments, when they get in power, it is like they are looking for ways to make it worse. You just get that sense that they do not sympathize with us, they don’t believe in our rights, they do not believe we should be doing what we are doing - so we get that adversarial relationship.

Will you commit to ensure that no existing non-restricted firearms, restricted firearms or devices would be classified as prohibited under your leadership?
That is the benefit of having those strict definitions and taking it out of the hands of the RCMP and their subjective criteria. The laws of physics do not change from year to year, the guns themselves do not change from year to year - often the criteria does not change from year to year. What happens is you get a different person in a position of authority who has different interpretations of subjective criteria. I very much agree that it is a problem when you tell gun owners one year that, “yes - legally this is a restricted firearm” and then two or three years later they are all prohibited. That is the critical point we need to get to, non-firearms owners and people who are not as supportive of our community need to believe that we have a robust regime of licensing and safety while firearms owners do not feel like they are waiting for the next shoe to drop, or not having confidence that they are following the rules, or that the rules wont change - something like that.

How do we protect property rights, especially when it pertains to firearms?
That is a huge, huge issue. I was very concerned when I read those reports (2013 Alberta flood firearms seizure by the RCMP) - the Conservative Party spoke out against some of those actions. I believe that property rights have to be entrenched in the constitution, I believe we need greater protection on property rights and I think that would apply to not only entry into a home but also taking something out of a home. Unfortunately, there are all kinds of rights being read into our constitution by judges, by politicians, by different levels of government - but we still do not have a robust property rights regime in this country. The idea that agents of the crown would kick in my door and confiscate my property is very disturbing. There is always a justification in history for governments all around the world to ensure public safety - threats, greater security - when we give up those rights, the criteria for doing it the next time gets thinner and thinner. We have to be very vigilant about that. In 2013 it was because of floods and legitimate concerns around public safety, we do not want to get to the point that in twenty or thirty years we have a government that is preemptively seizing firearms because they are afraid there might be unrest. Imagine scenarios that are not far fetched, they happen in other countries.

CJ Summers, Director of Public Outreach (https://www.facebook.com/CJJSummers/)
Calibre Magazine (http://calibremag.ca/)

mavrik9
12-19-2016, 05:36 PM
So far so good

Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk

Joshua13
12-19-2016, 07:18 PM
Sweet! I heard good things about him before this came out. Now he totally has my backing

Sent from my E6560T using Tapatalk

CLW .45
12-21-2016, 01:10 AM
Received an email from Hamish Marshall, Andrew's campaign manager. He told me how Andrew will win, and asked that I donate.

My response.



Hamish,

To date, I see no reason to support Andrew. He shows no understanding of the nature of firearms law in Canada. A vicious attack on the people who are least likely, less likely even than police, to be a problem.

The law is designed to disarm. The Liberals, after pushing C-68 through with manipulation and lies, bragged about it. But let's ignore that for the moment.

The law requires that you demonstrate "need" in order to access the provisions for use, carriage, and possession to protect life. That provision has been used, worldwide, to deny access.

Whether rifle, pistol, or shotgun there is no type of firearm from single shot to full auto that is not included, in one form or another, in the prohibited classification. The only purpose for prohibition is confiscation and disarmament. Intent matters not, when the mechanism is causing it to happen.

Criminalization of the use, carriage, and possession of firearms, devices, and ammunition. Not criminalization of misuse, but of ordinary use. Not carriage while committing a criminal act, but ordinary carriage. Not possession of stolen goods, but ordinary possession. In other words criminalized for doing nothing wrong. Every actually criminal thing that can be done with a firearm, device, or ammunition was proscribed by criminal law before those items existed. Whether intended or not, the only purpose for criminalization of use, carriage, and possession is to disarm.

Whether intended or not, it is not acceptable to violate the rights of Canadians by criminalizing normal behaviours.

Need, prohibition, and criminalization - must be ripped from the law and erased from the consciousness of this nation.

No party, no leader, no candidate, who refuses to acknowledge and act upon that reality is worthy of support.

Do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

CLW .45

CLW .45
12-21-2016, 02:43 AM
Hamish sent an update on the day's fundraising. Wants to up the ante.

My response.



Hamish,

I'm not impressed.

Convince me that he understands need, prohibition, and criminalization as they relate to Canadian firearms law - That will impress me.

It will impress me to the point of opening my already stressed wallet. Until I am convinced, all of my donations will go to Canada's National Firearms Association.

Remove Need - Repeal Prohibition - Repeal Criminalization

CLW .45

awndray
05-27-2017, 09:42 PM
Bump for those who haven't read the memo

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

MarkR
05-28-2017, 05:27 AM
I am more comfortable with Scheer than with Bernier. This is good news; and not just regarding our sport.

Gunexpert007
05-28-2017, 06:07 AM
I am more comfortable with Scheer than with Bernier. This is good news; and not just regarding our sport.

I would agree . Scheer seems to be a builder , and not a divider . There was quite a number of leadership hopefuls running for the CPC this time around ; and Scheer came out on top....that says a lot about his ability to win people over right there . :Beer time:

spider69
05-28-2017, 07:27 AM
I must say that I'm very impressed with the way this evolved. My vote went to Erin O'Toole,but,when it became obvious he didn't have the votes to continue,all his people went to Scheer which,in fact,made O'Toole the "kingmaker". That should virtually guarantee a very prominent place in Caucus for Erin which,in turn,will be very good for our riding.

glockfan
05-28-2017, 08:32 AM
I am more comfortable with Scheer than with Bernier. This is good news; and not just regarding our sport.

i disagree .while sheer is a respectable politician, i'm quite deceived because i feel we're done now. who ever it was, i wanted someone who can win against the turd ; and to reach the driver seat position in canada , you need to bring quebec with you. sheer will never get anything in quebec.

Billythreefeathers
05-28-2017, 09:07 AM
i disagree .while sheer is a respectable politician, i'm quite deceived because i feel we're done now. who ever it was, i wanted someone who can win against the turd ; and to reach the driver seat position in canada , you need to bring quebec with you. sheer will never get anything in quebec.

http://i1176.photobucket.com/albums/x339/Billythreefeathers/oddball2_zps0g6mmniu.jpeg (http://s1176.photobucket.com/user/Billythreefeathers/media/oddball2_zps0g6mmniu.jpeg.html)

Battle Beaver
05-28-2017, 09:19 PM
i disagree .while sheer is a respectable politician, i'm quite deceived because i feel we're done now. who ever it was, i wanted someone who can win against the turd ; and to reach the driver seat position in canada , you need to bring quebec with you. sheer will never get anything in quebec.

Not sure if you're just trolling, or you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Results from Quebec CPC ballots:

Round 1 - BERNIER 39.38%, SCHEER 27.68%
..
..
..
Round 13 - BERNIER 55.62%, SCHEER 44.38%

Yes, Bernier got more votes, but Scheer was a solid 2nd in Quebec all the way from round 1 to round 13.

So exactly what do you mean by "sheer (sic) will never get anything in quebec"?

All results broken down by Province/Riding are here:

https://www.conservative.ca/leadership/en/results

Battle Beaver

glockfan
05-29-2017, 08:09 AM
Not sure if you're just trolling, or you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Results from Quebec CPC ballots:

Round 1 - BERNIER 39.38%, SCHEER 27.68%
..
..
..
Round 13 - BERNIER 55.62%, SCHEER 44.38%

Yes, Bernier got more votes, but Scheer was a solid 2nd in Quebec all the way from round 1 to round 13.

So exactly what do you mean by "sheer (sic) will never get anything in quebec"?

All results broken down by Province/Riding are here:

https://www.conservative.ca/leadership/en/results

Battle Beaver

i'm talking about what really count: the upcoming federal election.

linung
05-29-2017, 03:01 PM
Congrats to Sheer?

I think I saw in this morning's paper he won.....