NFA Press Release: NFA HEADS TO THE SUPREME COURT!

S

SolomonFriedman

Industry Expert
Joined
Jul 24, 2014
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Points
0
NFA HEADS TO THE SUPREME COURT!

This year the NFA will be intervening in two Supreme Court Cases. The fight for the Quebec Long Gun Registry Data ( SCC Hearing on October 8th 2014) Attorney Guy Lavergne representing and our latest case (See Below). The NFA needs you to become a member and donate to the only organization fighting for your rights in the Supreme Court!

Today, the Supreme Court of Canada announced that it is granting intervener status to Canada’s National Firearms Association in the appeal of R. v. Hussein Jama Nur, et al.

This appeal concerns the constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences of imprisonment for unauthorized possession of a handgun with readily accessible ammunition. In 2013, the Ontario Court of Appeal found those minimum sentences to be unconstitutional, owing in part to the overbroad nature of the offence. It would be cruel and unusual punishment, the Court of Appeal found, to subject otherwise law-abiding gun owners to mandatory jail for such a regulatory-type offence. The Crown appealed that judgement to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Last month, the NFA applied for leave to intervene on the appeal, citing its institutional legal expertise and its position as the voice of Canadian gun owners. The NFA will be arguing in support of the Respondent, and asking the court to uphold the judgement of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The NFA will be advocating on behalf of its 75,000 members and all law-abiding firearm owners before the highest court in Canada. The appeal is tentatively scheduled to be heard on November 7, 2014.

The NFA will be represented at the Supreme Court by lawyer and noted firearms law expert Solomon Friedman of Edelson Clifford D’Angelo Friedman LLP.
 
Nice to see them getting back to what they've traditionally been good at. Hope it goes well for them.
 
Go Solomon Go! Hopefully we can get this mandatory minimum BS canned and make Quebec realize they are part of Canada and must abide by the will of parliament.

What is the typical time line for getting a decision after the hearing? Three to six months?
 
Fan of Solomon, not of the NFA, that president Sheldon is some kind of "class act" from what I've seen.

But Solomon, keep up the good work, I have watched all your videos on your interviews and its good to see you apart of the community of firearms owners.
 
MadMax said:
Fan of Solomon, not of the NFA, that president Sheldon is some kind of "class act" from what I've seen.

But Solomon, keep up the good work, I have watched all your videos on your interviews and its good to see you apart of the community of firearms owners.
Click to expand...
Have you met Sheldon? Talked to him? Communicated via email? Been to his facebook page?
 
Claidemore said:
Have you met Sheldon? Talked to him? Communicated via email? Been to his facebook page?
Click to expand...

I have. I like sheldon, he's a nice guy and there's no arguing his heart is in the right place, he's very passionate, and lets face it - he's doing it all for free. But - i have to admit he is very very stubborn and i think his ideas about where to go with the org are wrong-thinking and his priorities are a little off. Go listen to one of his interviews, and then go listen to one of Solomons.

And I REALLY don't like the whole "lets just bash our chests and demand what we want regardless of how ridiculous it is" thing they've got going on right now. It can drive membership numbers up, which is good for the org, but it really does nothing for gun owners which is bad for those whom the org is supposed to represent.

In the past the NFA has done some amazing work on the legal front - so it's great to see them getting back to that kind of thing and taking action that might really make a difference. We'll see how they do - hopefully they can make that pay off and we'll walk away with a bit of a victory here.
 
Claidemore said:
Have you met Sheldon? Talked to him? Communicated via email? Been to his facebook page?
Click to expand...

I have. Not impressed. In the latest magazine he claimed the Cz and SA prohibs can only be shot on proib approved ranges. The amnesty makes no such claim. I pointed out to him in an email the exact wording of the Sections of the FA and the amnesty, and what he was doing was claiming his opinion was fact. I said it was unprofessional to make a claim like that. He refuses to retract the statement, which is clearly, by the wording of the law, wrong.
 
Actually, it IS illegal to discharge a prohibited long gun at any range other than one owned by DND. Same section that the CFOs are relying on not to issue SAP's.
JRW (QOR) said:
I have. Not impressed. In the latest magazine he claimed the Cz and SA prohibs can only be shot on proib approved ranges. The amnesty makes no such claim. I pointed out to him in an email the exact wording of the Sections of the FA and the amnesty, and what he was doing was claiming his opinion was fact. I said it was unprofessional to make a claim like that. He refuses to retract the statement, which is clearly, by the wording of the law, wrong.
Click to expand...
 
Good luck to the NFA with their Court challenges......fighting govt. , who has unlimited resources paid for by the taxpayers . is an uphill battle.....
 
I have to re-up my NFA membership soon, I'll kick in a little extra too.

What we really need is a Charter challenge on 'security of the person' and property rights etc that relate to gun rights, self defense, CCW etc
 
Gunexpert007 said:
Good luck to the NFA with their Court challenges......fighting govt. , who has unlimited resources paid for by the taxpayers . is an uphill battle.....
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's never worked out for the other groups who've tried it, like first nations or gays or women..... oh, wait... :)

It's a tough fight because the courts don't generally like gun owners, but at the end of the day It's still worth it and there's often a good chance of winning. I haven't read the particulars of these cases but I doubt solomon would get involved if he didn't think they had at least a reasonable chance.
 
Foxer said:
Yeah, it's never worked out for the other groups who've tried it, like first nations or gays or women..... oh, wait... :)

It's a tough fight because the courts don't generally like gun owners, but at the end of the day It's still worth it and there's often a good chance of winning. I haven't read the particulars of these cases but I doubt solomon would get involved if he didn't think they had at least a reasonable chance.
Click to expand...

Not sure about the Gay Community ; but many First Nations and Womens' Issues challenges to the Court were paid for by the govt. , I doubt if the govt. will give the NFA any money to help with their cause.......but firearm owners have won many battles on their own dime , and hopefully they will win this battle as well........
 
Last edited:
RobSmith said:
Actually, it IS illegal to discharge a prohibited long gun at any range other than one owned by DND. Same section that the CFOs are relying on not to issue SAP's.
Click to expand...

Read the amnesty. You can transport these firearms AS THEY WERE to that range, but you cant shoot them? Please. The Amnesty says you can shoot them at any licenced range. YOU are imposing YOUR opinion on the situation that is not in the amnesty. Only the Qc CFO has said this, no other CFO's have. So they dont agree with your opinion.
 
Actually the "amnesty" mentions approved under section 29 ... Byut in order to be approved under section 29 you must comply with the regulations under section 117 ... That's where it gets tricky because each range has it's own set of regulations, for example NO range in Quebec is approved for the discharge of prohibited firearms, except for prohibited handguns, unless said range is under the auspices of DND using this document as a basis http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-208/page-2.html#docCont .
(b) in the case of any other prohibited firearm, if it is being used for test firing or demonstration purposes or for target shooting or competitive events, on an occasional basis, at a shooting range approved under section 29 of the Act or maintained by the Minister of National Defence under the National Defence Act.
Click to expand...
If such ranges existed, SAP's would still be issued. So you may transport it, you may even bring it to the range, but you may not fire it outside of an "approved" range, and there are no (civilian) ranges approved for these classes of prohibited firearms.

JRW (QOR) said:
Read the amnesty. You can transport these firearms AS THEY WERE to that range, but you cant shoot them? Please. The Amnesty says you can shoot them at any licenced range. YOU are imposing YOUR opinion on the situation that is not in the amnesty. Only the Qc CFO has said this, no other CFO's have. So they dont agree with your opinion.
Click to expand...
 
RobSmith said:
Actually the "amnesty" mentions approved under section 29 ... Byut in order to be approved under section 29 you must comply with the regulations under section 117 ... That's where it gets tricky because each range has it's own set of regulations, for example NO range in Quebec is approved for the discharge of prohibited firearms, except for prohibited handguns, unless said range is under the auspices of DND using this document as a basis http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-208/page-2.html#docCont . If such ranges existed, SAP's would still be issued. So you may transport it, you may even bring it to the range, but you may not fire it outside of an "approved" range, and there are no (civilian) ranges approved for these classes of prohibited firearms.
Click to expand...

Read the amnesty. You can transport them as they were before reclassification. That means I can transport my Cz858 as it was non-restricted. So how can I transport it to the range as non-restricted, but I cant shoot it at that range because the range doesnt allow prohib? Please. It's clear. We can transport them to any approved range AS THEY WERE before the reclassification. Hence we can shoot them at those same ranges AS THEY WERE before the reclassification.
 
JRW (QOR) said:
Read the amnesty. You can transport them as they were before reclassification. That means I can transport my Cz858 as it was non-restricted. So how can I transport it to the range as non-restricted, but I cant shoot it at that range because the range doesnt allow prohib? Please. It's clear. We can transport them to any approved range AS THEY WERE before the reclassification. Hence we can shoot them at those same ranges AS THEY WERE before the reclassification.
Click to expand...

From the RCMP website: (the last line is significant)
"On July 23, 2014, the Government of Canada announced an expansion of this amnesty. It now permits the owner of an affected firearm to:
a.possess the firearm;
b.deliver the firearm to a peace officer, firearms officer or chief firearms officer;
c.sell or give the firearm to a business — including a museum — authorized to acquire and possess prohibited firearms;
d.transport the firearm for the purposes of (b) or (c) or
e.use the firearm in target practice or at a target shooting competition under the auspices of an approved shooting club or shooting range, and transport it for this purpose.

Owners of affected firearms should contact the range they intend to visit prior to attendance, in order to confirm the range can accommodate their firearm."

If you can transport your firearm as a non-restricted, why can you only shoot it at an approved range? Why not the gravel pit? Why can you only sell it to businesses or museams allowed to acquire prohibs?
All the amnesty really does is allow the owner to temporarily act as a prohib pal holder for those specific firearms.
 
Yup. That's how I read it. "Approved" as in for the classification of firearm you are shooting.
I don't for one second trust that the government thought this through correctly.
I am not willing to bet my PAL, and a three year manditory sentence against it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Register now
or