Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 31
  1. #21
    Senior Member Gunrunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    3,428
    Quote Originally Posted by GTW View Post
    Attachment 25185
    So other than signing the e-petition, I take it you’ve contributed funds to the CCFR court challenge?
    Because you are right , without funding from gun owners, there is a risk of running out of cash on account this will be a long drawn out expensive case.
    We’ll need an injunction to freeze the ban if the case goes past the amnesty.
    Don’t see why it would take that long as the facts are pretty simple.
    Hope the court doesn’t follow the NZ example and say the ban was not entirely justified but technically legal.
    The government does have the right under the law to form the subjective opinion that the banned guns are unsuitable for sporting and hunting.
    The sad part is that the current body of law (firearms act and related sections of the criminal code) the Liberals are using against us is like a hangman’s noose that was fashioned over 50 years while we sat on our butts wallowing in apathy and now it’s too late.
    NFA member
    NRA Life Member
    OFAH member

  2. #22
    Senior Member GTW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    In a dictatorship ruled by PM Blackface
    Posts
    2,810
    But still, the question remains gunrunner, have you anted up and kicked in cash to the fight? Every dollar is important.
    "Mr. Speaker, we really could replace Justin Trudeau with a cardboard cutout, and his peanut gallery wouldn't know the difference"

  3. #23
    Senior Member Gunrunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    3,428
    Quote Originally Posted by GTW View Post
    But still, the question remains gunrunner, have you anted up and kicked in cash to the fight? Every dollar is important.
    Yes
    NFA member
    NRA Life Member
    OFAH member

  4. The Following User Liked This Post By Gunrunner

    Turtlehead (06-30-2020)

  5. #24
    Senior Member GTW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    In a dictatorship ruled by PM Blackface
    Posts
    2,810
    Good stuff. Hoping others follow your lead. For my part, I contributed to the CCFR, NFA, Hipwell, and the Ont Landowners legal action and will continue monthly donations. Kicking the CGC and the likes of Cukier, Rathjen et al is becoming my “new normal “.
    "Mr. Speaker, we really could replace Justin Trudeau with a cardboard cutout, and his peanut gallery wouldn't know the difference"

  6. The Following User Liked This Post By GTW

    stewbud (06-28-2020)

  7. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    SW Ontario
    Posts
    1,473
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunrunner View Post
    The government does have the right under the law to form the subjective opinion that the banned guns are unsuitable for sporting and hunting.
    They have the right to form that opinion, but they don't have the right to lie about having formed that opinion, which they have blatantly betrayed themselves as having done when they granted an exception for subsistence hunters. If a rifle can continue to be used for subsistence, then it follows that it WAS being used for subsistence, and thus obviously has a purpose other than to "kill as many blah blah blah".

  8. #26
    Senior Member Weekend Gunslingers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Alberta
    Posts
    1,087
    Quote Originally Posted by IJ22 View Post
    They have the right to form that opinion, but they don't have the right to lie about having formed that opinion, which they have blatantly betrayed themselves as having done when they granted an exception for subsistence hunters. If a rifle can continue to be used for subsistence, then it follows that it WAS being used for subsistence, and thus obviously has a purpose other than to "kill as many blah blah blah".
    As far as I understand about what Solomon Friedman said is that they can form the opinion if it is a reasonable opinion. In order for an opinion to be reasonable (according to the legal definition) it has to be based on facts, research etc. This is where they fail miserably. This is also what they would need to prove in court. So they would need to back up the claim of a "reasonable" opinion with facts not slogans.
    "Never step in anything soft"
    Youtube Channel : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYm...-sW1YrMRwIkTaQ

  9. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    514
    Quote Originally Posted by Weekend Gunslingers View Post
    As far as I understand about what Solomon Friedman said is that they can form the opinion if it is a reasonable opinion. In order for an opinion to be reasonable (according to the legal definition) it has to be based on facts, research etc. This is where they fail miserably. This is also what they would need to prove in court. So they would need to back up the claim of a "reasonable" opinion with facts not slogans.
    bingo/ Same reason CGC intervention will fail as well, they fight with emotions not facts. Another point to the 'reasonable' thing is if they are reasonable they may not be allowed to be restricted either, so say hello to NR ar-15 when all is said and done.

  10. The Following User Liked This Post By Big-Boss-Man

    Weekend Gunslingers (06-29-2020)

  11. #28
    Canadian ForcesMember Billythreefeathers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Vesper Sask
    Posts
    12,649
    OK where is the CCFR donation thread?
    CSSA

  12. #29
    Senior Member GTW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    In a dictatorship ruled by PM Blackface
    Posts
    2,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Billythreefeathers View Post
    OK where is the CCFR donation thread?
    Right here Billy:

    https://firearmrights.ca/en/legal-challenge/

    wendy-300x300.jpg
    "Mr. Speaker, we really could replace Justin Trudeau with a cardboard cutout, and his peanut gallery wouldn't know the difference"

  13. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    514
    I actually really feel sorry for her, she looks like a very lonely miserable wretch.

    Someone (i think Range Bob) pointed out that poly didn't come into existence at the same time as cgc (after lecole attacks) but much later in 2009 when bill c691 was going through parliament ( a bill to repeal the LGR which failed at second reading) I was thinking that it would makes sense to split the group in parts to get more funds from the government for the same fight. I have said money laundering before but think about it, the more groups they have under their umbrella the more cash they get from the government for the same fight. a consortium of 300 groups could get 300 times 100% funding for certain grants couldn't they? So if each grant was 100 000 k that $30 000 000 heck even 10 k is 3 million. That would add up fast, and possibly yearly.


    here is an example the sumer jobs program:

    Not-for-profit employers are eligible to receive funding for up to 100% of the provincial or territorial minimum hourly wage. Public and private sector employers are eligible to receive funding for up to 50% of the provincial or territorial minimum hourly wage.
    so if they hired the same volunteers at all 300 agencies they could claim the same 100% at all, and from the recent story there is no oversight on this money.


    but more realistically there is this:

    Public Safety Canada's National Crime Prevention Strategy (NCPS) provides funding to strategically selected projects that contribute to preventing and reducing crime in Canada and to increasing knowledge about what works in crime prevention. In order to achieve its goals, the NCPS identifies specific priorities for project funding.

    Building on past successes and lessons learned, the NCPS aims to deliver concrete results in local communities by funding and evaluating interventions to prevent and reduce offending among those most at-risk, especially:

    Children, youth and young adults who show multiple risk factors known to be related to offending behaviour;
    High risk offenders in communities; and
    Indigenous and northern communities, especially those with high crime rates and persistent crime problems.
    Within these populations, the NCPS will also target specific priority crime issues such as drug-related crime, youth gangs and gun violence.
    Last edited by Big-Boss-Man; 06-30-2020 at 03:39 PM.

  14. The Following User Liked This Post By Big-Boss-Man

    stevebc (06-30-2020)

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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