Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 33
  1. #1
    Senior Member CLW .45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    2,648

    Another Wednesday, another note to the Senate

    Today’s missive.


    Senator,

    Yesterday, I was bowling with a friend. He is a long retired RCMP Corporal.

    Last year, while we were enjoying an afternoon at the shooting range, he said he would like a pistol for home defence.

    I explained that things were considerably different than when he was on the job. Two courses to take, two exams to pass, and a licence endorsed for restricted firearms to obtain, before a handgun can be purchased.

    And, section 28 of the firearms act forbids the Chief Firearms Officer (CFO) to approve the purchase if not convinced that you need it to protect life.

    In other words, unless you have sufficient political or economic clout to override the requirement to “just say no,” your request will be denied.

    As my friend can’t point to a specific imminent threat to their lives, and his political and economic clout are minuscule, he still has no pistol with which to protect his ailing wife.

    It is sad that the gun grabbers who prompted C-71 and the proposed handgun/rifle ban will, if he and his wife are killed in an armed invasion, use their deaths as an excuse for more restrictions and prohibitions to support their disarmament agenda.

    Just as they have with the defenceless victims in Toronto.

    Not you, not he, and most especially not the residents of neighbourhoods terrorized by armed thugs should be treated so shabbily.

    And I can hear some of you, even as you read this, indignantly exclaiming, “We cannot have people taking the law into their own hands,” or some such fatuous nonsense.

    Even the Charter of Rights and Freedoms pays lip service to your right to life, liberty, and security of the person.

    My friend should be able to fulfill his responsibility, to protect his loved one, without interference in the form of a veto or ban by some well-meaning busybody.

    You should as well.

    Please, stop this madness now!
    To show that men can travel to the moon and return, use the American experience.

    To show that public safety isn’t hurt by responsible individuals carrying to protect life, use the American experience.

  2. The Following 9 Users Like This Post By CLW .45

    awndray (10-25-2018), Doug_M (10-24-2018), hazmat472 (10-24-2018), killer kane (10-29-2018), LB303 (10-27-2018), manic29 (10-25-2018), Mark-II (10-26-2018), Soph (10-24-2018), Swingerguy (10-27-2018)

  3. #2
    Senior Member CLW .45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    2,648
    Senator Pratte replied.


    Thank you for your e-mail.

    With respect, I believe we see in the United States the results of citizens wanting to own a gun in order to protect their life...

    This is why I am happy that in Canada, the Charter of rights does not give us a right to bear firearms. The Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed this in its decisions on the matter.

    A good gun-control regime is not a magic wand that will prevent all gun violence. But it helps, as demonstrated by the far lower gun crime rate in Canada compared to the US.

    Regards,

    André Pratte

    I responded.


    Senator,

    First, I am intimately acquainted with the United States and your intimation that firearms ownership for self defence is a problem is an outrageous falsehood.

    Second, there is no such thing as good gun control. It has been admitted on numerous occasions that the Liberal party’s gun laws have little or nothing to do with with violent crime, and everything to do with a grand plan to disarm the people of Canada. Leave them defenceless in the face of vicious armed thugs. The same thugs you cite as the reason for C-71, while ensuring that they will spend less time locked away from their innocent victims with C-75.

    Please, don’t continue to insult our intelligence.
    To show that men can travel to the moon and return, use the American experience.

    To show that public safety isn’t hurt by responsible individuals carrying to protect life, use the American experience.

  4. The Following 10 Users Like This Post By CLW .45

    awndray (10-25-2018), Doug_M (10-24-2018), glockfan (10-27-2018), GTW (10-24-2018), killer kane (10-29-2018), LB303 (10-27-2018), manic29 (10-25-2018), Mark-II (10-26-2018), Soph (10-26-2018), Swingerguy (10-27-2018)

  5. #3
    Senior Member CLW .45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    2,648
    Couldn’t wait ‘til next Wednesday.


    Senator,

    I am, frankly, fed up with the refrain, “...the Charter of rights does not give us a right to bear firearms.”

    Charters do not confer rights. They simply recognize, or fail to recognize.

    As for statements to the effect that the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to arms does not exist in Canada, I challenge our “evidence based” government to provide chapter and verse.

    The specific statement written by what justice, on what date, in what case.

    To the best of my knowledge no such ruling exists. Feel free to prove me wrong.

    But, understand this. While the court may rule on whether the constitution allows the government to refuse to recognize the rights of the individual, it has no authority to rule on the existence of those rights.

    You have a right to life, to liberty, to security of the person, to property, to arms.

    When your neighbour’s rights are violated, yours are as well.

    When it comes to firearms, those who are most egregiously harmed by bad law are the weak and the innocent. And it is not just their right to property and arms that these laws violate.

    Disarming them is an outrageous violation of their right to life, to liberty, and to security of the person.

    Thank you for your attention,
    To show that men can travel to the moon and return, use the American experience.

    To show that public safety isn’t hurt by responsible individuals carrying to protect life, use the American experience.

  6. The Following 7 Users Like This Post By CLW .45

    Doug_M (10-25-2018), FallisCowboy (10-27-2018), killer kane (10-29-2018), LB303 (10-27-2018), Mark-II (10-26-2018), Soph (10-26-2018), Swingerguy (10-25-2018)

  7. #4
    Senior Member CLW .45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    2,648
    Senator Pratte replied.


    Sir,

    In R. v. Hasselwander (1993), Justice Peter Cory wrote: “Canadians, unlike Americans do not have a constitutional right to bear arms.”

    In R. v. Wiles (2005), Justice Louise Charron wrote: “Possession and use of firearms is not a right or freedom guaranteed under the Charter, but a privilege.”

    Regards,



    André Pratte

    I, of course, replied.


    Senator,

    Thank you for the prompt response. The decisions you cite are, as I believed, confirmation that the right to arms is neither recognized nor protected by our constitution.

    They do not state that “the right to arms does not exist in Canada.”

    Nor, I contend, do any other rulings in Canadian jurisprudence.

    For such a ruling would be an outrage, given that the right to arms is an immutable right, inextricably linked to the right to life, to liberty, and to security of the person.

    As I have stated previously, there are few things that we may legitimately demand of government.

    Recognition of our rights is one.

    The government of Canada must recognize and protect our right to arms.

    Respectfully,
    Last edited by CLW .45; 10-26-2018 at 09:19 PM.
    To show that men can travel to the moon and return, use the American experience.

    To show that public safety isn’t hurt by responsible individuals carrying to protect life, use the American experience.

  8. The Following 7 Users Like This Post By CLW .45

    Doug_M (10-27-2018), FallisCowboy (10-27-2018), killer kane (10-29-2018), LB303 (10-27-2018), manic29 (10-28-2018), RangeBob (10-26-2018), Swingerguy (10-27-2018)

  9. #5
    Senior Member CLW .45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    2,648
    Senator Dean replied.


    Thank you Wayne.
    I’m afraid we disagree on this matter as firearms are clearly regulated under our Criminal Code. Possessing firearms is a privilege in Canada, and not a right.

    This is precisely why we are having a debate about proposed changes to the Criminal Code in Bill C-71.

    I’m not aware of any judicial decision that implies that gun ownership is integral to liberty and personal security. In the absence of that we must rely on the Criminal Code and that’s what we do every day in Canada. As far as I know, the Criminal Code is mostly prohibitive of gun ownership for the purpose of self protection but I’m no expert in these matters.

    All the best

    I responded.


    Tony,

    The criminal code is not in the least “prohibitive of gun ownership for the purpose of self protection.”

    In fact, the criminal code provides for the carriage of concealed weapons with authorization.

    Authorization to carry handguns to protect life is found in section 20 of the firearms act.

    Additionally, authorization to acquire handguns to protect life is found in section 28.

    No one expects you to be an expert. But we have a right to expect some due diligence. You must never rely on the sponsor of a bill.

    That is especially true when people’s lives and property are on the line.

    There have been provisions for use, carriage, and possession of handguns to protect life as long as we have been a nation, indeed since before we were a nation.

    In fact, no less than Sir John A. MacDonald stated in parliament that restrictions on carriage, designed to disarm young thugs, would have quite the opposite effect. The thugs would continue to carry while the innocent would be left defenceless.

    Carry to protect life is a given in law. The only question remaining is the extent to which government may interfere in the decision to do so.

    C-71 violates the right to property and to arms. Both of which have been well documented in common law for centuries.

    By extension it violates the right to life, liberty, and security of the person.

    Your rights.

    You have every bit as much reason as I to demand that those rights be recognized and protected.
    To show that men can travel to the moon and return, use the American experience.

    To show that public safety isn’t hurt by responsible individuals carrying to protect life, use the American experience.

  10. The Following 5 Users Like This Post By CLW .45

    Doug_M (10-27-2018), FallisCowboy (10-27-2018), killer kane (10-29-2018), LB303 (10-27-2018), manic29 (10-28-2018)

  11. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    153
    Brilliantly handled CLW .45. I've written more than my fair share of letters, but I wish thousands of us, including myself, could be so pointed, tenacious, and eloquent.

  12. The Following 5 Users Like This Post By GeoTrekr

    Billythreefeathers (10-27-2018), Doug_M (10-27-2018), LB303 (10-27-2018), manic29 (10-28-2018), Swingerguy (10-27-2018)

  13. #7
    Senior Member CLW .45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    2,648
    Senator Dean replied.


    Thanks Wayne.
    I’m learning all the time.

    The Firearms Act though prescribes the circumstances and conditions under which handgun permits are issued. Some are quite obvious such as for occupational and sporting purposes. There is a also a reference to life being in “imminent danger.”

    These seem to be conditions and restrictions in the law. I also see a role for the Chief Firearms Officer who I presume had some sort of role in determining what “imminent danger” and other conditions mean.

    Is it the proposed changes to ATT requirements in Bill C-71 that you are most concerned about? Or do you also have concerns with the existing version of the firearms act? I am
    trying to understand the degree to which the volatile reaction to C-71 is just about that Bill or was something that was already simmering.

    An I getting warmer? I’m just doing my due diligence as you have rightly suggested.

    Tony
    To show that men can travel to the moon and return, use the American experience.

    To show that public safety isn’t hurt by responsible individuals carrying to protect life, use the American experience.

  14. The Following User Liked This Post By CLW .45

    FallisCowboy (10-27-2018)

  15. #8
    Decided that being pink is in
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    3,033
    I thought that the historical British recognition of a citizens "right to arms" goes back to the Magna Carta. That would then apply in Canada because our "Crown", in law, is the same entity. Correct me if I am wrong, please.
    Last edited by FallisCowboy; 10-27-2018 at 10:36 AM.

  16. #9
    Senior Member LB303's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    not far enough
    Posts
    4,754
    I presume your next letter will address the "may issue" regime. Great work. I'm among those whose words falter...
    "If we had a vote tomorrow I would vote, once again, to keep the Registry..." - Justin Trudeau
    "... if Canadians are to trust their government, their government needs to trust Canadians." - Justin Trudeau

  17. #10
    Senior Member CLW .45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    2,648
    My response to Senator Dean.


    Tony,

    Excellent questions.

    As I wrote in my last email, carry to protect life is a given in law, the question is the extent to which government may interfere in the decision of the innocent.

    The regulations pursuant to section 20 purport to define need as it relates to carry to protect life, and by extension as it applies to approval to acquire a handgun to protect life.

    The CFO is forbidden to authorize either, unless he believes the weapon is needed.

    Not a legitimate intrusion.

    Is my concern greater in terms of present or proposed legislation?

    That is, indeed, the heart of the matter.

    In the late seventies, after passage of C-51, members of the RCMP were trained in administration of the new law. During that training, they were told that the law was the result of a tripartite agreement to disarm the people of Canada within the following three generations. Disarm, leave them entirely defenceless, neutered.

    After C-68, several Liberal luminaries bragged that the bill had little to do with crime, and everything to do with disarming this nation.

    C-71 is simply one more nail in that coffin.

    That agenda is the reason for the vehemence of the responses.

    Disarmament is simply unacceptable.

    It is an outrageous violation of your right to life, to liberty, to security of the person, to property, and to arms.

    Are there any current firearms specific laws that are legitimate?

    The short answer is very few, perhaps only one.

    The criminal code forbids pointing a firearm at a person, whether loaded or unloaded, without lawful excuse.

    You may think that the requirement, in the criminal code, for permission to carry a concealed weapon is one. No, it applies to all weapons.

    Murder, manslaughter, assault, robbery. Firearms are included with all other weapons.

    No law that allows government to interfere in the decision of an individual to use, carry, or possess firearms is legitimate unless it includes no more than a justifiable requirement to demonstrate knowledge and/ or proficiency.

    No firearm is inappropriate for use, carriage, or possession by the people of Canada. In fact, current and contemplated law clearly demonstrates that all firearms, of whatever kind, are considered to be the same by the gun-grabbers.

    The current prohibited firearms list includes examples of every modern firearm type in existence. Pejoratives such as “Saturday Night Special” and “assault weapon” are simply convenient ways to describe what is considered to be low hanging fruit, ripe for the picking.

    Today, handguns and semi-automatic rifles are the low hanging fruit.

    Tomorrow? Pump and semi-auto shotguns?

    We must demand that our rights be recognized and protected.

    That your rights be recognized and protected.

    ‘Nuff said?

    Wayne
    To show that men can travel to the moon and return, use the American experience.

    To show that public safety isn’t hurt by responsible individuals carrying to protect life, use the American experience.

  18. The Following 4 Users Like This Post By CLW .45

    Doug_M (10-27-2018), killer kane (10-29-2018), LB303 (10-27-2018), manic29 (10-28-2018)

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Did you know it was Write the Senate Wednesday?
    By Doug_M in forum 2018 Bill C-71
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10-19-2018, 07:55 AM
  2. A Note about Glock Day!
    By TSE_Sales in forum The Shooting Edge
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-09-2017, 04:23 PM
  3. Note to self....
    By kennymo in forum General Firearms Discussion
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 04-25-2015, 07:12 PM
  4. Wound Up Wednesday.
    By FALover in forum General Firearms Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-23-2014, 01:48 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •