Team CSSA E-NEWS – February 26, 2015
** Please share this with your friends ** Unsubscribe
COMMENTARY – MORE PROTECTION FOR SPORT SHOOTERS AND HUNTERS IN BREITKREUZ’S PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BILL
The CSSA is pleased to announce another step forward to reclaim the rights of our members. Veteran M.P. Garry Breitkreuz has introduced a private members’ bill which would amend the Criminal Code to make it an offence to interfere with lawful hunting, fishing, trapping or sport shooting in Canada.
These traditional heritage activities have played an integral role in shaping Canada’s social and cultural heritage and make a significant contribution to the national economy. Hunters, anglers, trappers and sport shooters have made important contributions to the understanding, conservation, restoration and management of Canada’s vital fish and wildlife resources.
“As co-chair of the Parliamentary Outdoors Caucus, I recognize the need to protect those Canadians who lawfully hunt, fish, trap or shoot from those who would harass or interfere with these traditional heritage activities,” explained Breitkreuz.
While there is a patchwork of legislation at the provincial and territorial levels, Bill C-655 will harmonize and clarify across Canada the protection of persons pursuing all of these time-honoured heritage activities by placing these offences within the Criminal Code of Canada.
“I’ve seen too many bills introduced in Parliament over the years that would threaten traditional animal use – some that would go so far as to make it a federal criminal offence to shoot a deer or duck, put a worm on a hook or kill any animal even if the animal died immediately – the accepted legal standard for humane killing,” continued Breitkreuz.
Bill C-655 seeks to amend the Criminal Code by adding the following after section 264.01:
Every one commits an offence who intentionally interferes with lawful hunting, trapping,
fishing or sport shooting by
(a) tampering with or moving bait or a trap, net or firearm or any other thing or animal used for hunting, trapping, fishing or sport shooting;
(b) placing themselves in a position that hinders or prevents hunting, trapping, fishing or sport shooting; or
(c) engaging in an activity that disturbs or is likely to disturb wildlife, including fish.
A person who contravenes this section could face an indictable offence with fines of up to $25,000 or a prison term of up to one year – or both.
A unique aspect of the legislation is the inclusion of recreational shooting along with fishing, hunting and trapping.
“I want to bring fairer representation for Canadian anglers, hunters, trappers and sport shooters to Parliament. Animal rights groups would rather have us end our passion for traditional heritage activities. While I am convinced that those activities are just as important now as they ever were, we need to ensure that those who enjoy them get the protection they deserve. I believe this legislation does just that,” concluded Breitkreuz.
The CSSA is honoured to be able to express our gratitude to Mr. Breitkreuz once more. “Garry has been a stalwart in our community. He has been a person that understands our commitment to these great activities and has been able to successfully communicate this passion to our House of Commons,” said CSSA executive director Tony Bernardo. “Our members owe a huge amount of thanks to Garry B. His willingness to listen to our concerns and work with us towards fairer laws is unprecedented in this country. On behalf of all of us at the CSSA, thank you Garry!”
-30-
“Allan Rock said he came to Ottawa with the belief that only the police and military should have firearms. I believe that firearms ownership is a right, but a right that comes with responsibilities.” – The Honourable Steven Blaney, Minister of Public Safety
HELP SUPPORT THE GREAT WORK THE CSSA DOES TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS. DONATE HERE
CSSA “STICK TO YOUR GUNS” DINNER – FRIDAY, APRIL 3, 2015 – CALGARY, ALBERTA – Holiday Inn, 4206 Macleod Trail South. Cocktails at 6 p.m., dinner at 7 p.m. Superb “All-You-Can-Eat” buffet. Raffles, prizes and special guests. Tickets $69.99 per person. For information, please call Heather at 1-888-873-4339 or email: info@cssa-cila.org
GUNS – KNIVES – MILITARIA – ANTIQUES SHOW AND SALE – MARCH 7 AND 8, 2015 – CHILLIWACK, BRITISH COLUMBIA. Location: Heritage Park, 44140 Luckakuck Way, Chilliwack (Exit 116 off Highway 1). Hours of operation: Saturday, March 7, 9 a.m. – 5 p.m.; Sunday, March 8, 9 a.m. – 3 p.m. General admission is $5. Parking by donation – ATM on site. RV parking available. Food Concession. For further information or table rentals, please call Gordon Bader at 604-747-4704 or Al Amundson at 604-941-8489. Check out our website at: www.HACS.bc.ca. WE SUPPORT THE CANADIAN CANCER “KIDS’ CAMP” AND CKNW ORPHANS’ FUND.
GUN SHOW – SUNDAY, MARCH 1, 2015 – MARKHAM, ONTARIO – Markham Fairgrounds, 10801 McCowan Road. 7:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. For more information, please call Allan at 416-579-4944. For more upcoming shows, visit: http//www.ontariogunshows.com.
NUMBER OF VIOLENT CRIMES INVOLVING GUNS EXAGGERATED BY AN OVER-INCLUSIVE DEFINITION OF GUN CRIME (By Gary Mauser | Canada Free Press | February 23, 2015)
Statistics Canada defines “firearms-related” crime” as when “a gun is present during the commission of the crime.” Just “present,” not “used.”
By using an over-inclusive definition, Statistics Canada has exaggerated the number of violent crimes that involve guns. The result is that gun violence appears to be four times more frequent than it really is. In 2013 (the most recent year statistics are available) Statistics Canada reports that there were 5,027 “firearms-related” incidents out of 263,054 violent crimes (i.e., 2% of violent crimes). Clearly, gun violence isn’t prevalent. But even that small share exaggerates the frequency that a gun was actually used to commit a violent crime. A Special Request I made to Statistics Canada late in 2014 revealed that a gun was actually used in just 1,194 violent crimes in 2013. Gun violence only occurred in one-quarter of “firearms-related” crimes and in just 0.5% of violent crimes.
Without looking too closely at the definition, it is easy to confuse “firearms-related” crime with incidents of actual gun misuse. They are not identical. Statistics Canada defines “firearms-related” crime” as when “a gun is present during the commission of the crime.” Just “present,” not “used.” This means that a crime may be “firearms-related” even though the gun was not directly involved in committing the crime or injuring the victim. It was just found somewhere at the scene of the crime. In accordance with the Uniform Crime Reporting rules, if no matter what other weapons might be at the crime scene, if a firearm is among them it is automatically considered “the most serious weapon present.” Thus, if is a firearm is recovered at the crime scene, even if the victim was injured with another weapon, then the incident is classified as “firearms-related” by Statistics Canada.
Read the rest: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/69964
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE (Garry Breitkreuz, M.P. | Standing Order 31 | Official Report (Hansard) | February 23, 2015)
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, the civilian review and complaints commissioner for the RCMP finally released his report into the RCMP’s handling of the June 2013 flood in High River, Alberta.
Members will recall that both the Canadian military and the RCMP were called upon to undertake a search and rescue operation in response to the devastating flood situation there.
However, long after the town was secured those efforts by the RCMP changed into forcibly entering homes and seizing legally owned firearms and ammunition. The report confirms that hundreds of those firearms were taken without the legal authority to do so.
Back in June of 2013, our government raised the alarm after hearing reports that firearms were being seized by the RCMP. Law-abiding Canadians should never face unlawful search and seizure of their personal property.
The RCMP clearly has a long road ahead of it in restoring its reputation with law-abiding gun owners. Some accountability, in light of the report’s finding, would be a good start.
RCMP COMPLAINTS COMMISSION’S HIGH RIVER REPORT A LESSON FOR POLICE & COMMUNITIES – HOW NOT TO ACT IN AN EMERGENCY (By Dennis R. Young | Canada Free Press | February 22, 2015)
On February 12, 2015, the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP released their long-awaited report of their investigation of the RCMP’s actions during and following the emergency flooding in the Town of High River, Alberta between June 20, 2013 to July 13, 2013. The Commission’s investigation examined the RCMP’s forced entries of “more than 754 homes”, their unwarranted search of 4,666 homes (most on at least two occasions), damage complaints filed by more than 1,900 home owners, the RCMP’s seizure of more than 600 firearms and the seizure and destruction of approximately 7,500 pounds (between 400,000 and 450,000 rounds) of ammunition.
After reading the report, it is now clear to me why the Commission changed their name from the Commission for Public Complaints AGAINST the RCMP to the Complaints Commission FOR the RCMP. The report starts with such lofty aims and ambitions by quoting British statesman William Pitt from his speech to the House of Commons in 1763: “The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storms may enter, the rain may enter,—but the King of England cannot enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.”
Sadly, the report then goes on to document how the Queen’s forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, did cross the thresholds of 4,666 High River homes, by kicking in doors, searching homes and seizing private property without warrant. The report tries to justify the RCMP’s actions in High River, overlooking the Alberta Emergency Management Act’s requirements for the delegation of authority for unwarranted searches of buildings, omitting or distorting important details, contradicting past public statements and documents; and, holding no one to account for obvious egregious violations of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and offences under Criminal Code and the RCMP Act.
Read the whole 8-page report complete with hyperlinks to original documents addressing the following key points: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/69956#disqus
POINT #1 – Complaints Commission’s terms of reference too narrow to uncover the whole truth
POINT #2 – Unwarranted entries into 4,666 homes not authorized in accordance with Alberta
Emergency Management Act
POINT #3 – Senior Government officials confused about “legal authorities” for forced entries for weeks
POINT #4 – RCMP Forced Entries into 754 homes not justified – not one person found as a result
POINT #5 – RCMP Officers were not in the 4,666 High River homes lawfully
POINT #6 – Number of people “rescued” by RCMP searches not supported in any Handwritten
POINT #7 – Why wasn’t the High River plan implemented in the other 30 flooded communities?
POINT #8 – How can High River home owners ever trust the RCMP again?
POINT #9 – The RCMP Complaints Commission’s investigation fell short in many, many ways.
CANADA IN THE ROUGH – BRITISH COLUMBIA FLY IN MOOSE
THIS WEEK – Keith fly’s into the remote British Columbia back country and camps at the foot of some of the most stunning mountains known to man. With only what the crew can carry on their backs to survive, they hike for miles in search of the mighty Canadian moose.
See the teaser: http://www.canadaintherough.com/british-columbia-fly-in-moose/
MINISTER BLANEY ARE YOU LISTENING? (By Dave Young, President | Canadian Academy of Practical Shooting Inc. | February 19, 2015)
The Honorable Steven Blaney
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada
K1A 0A6
Minister Blaney
I wrote to you and Prime Minister Harper in March of last year regarding the ongoing problems my company has been encountering with the Chief Firearm Officer (CFO) of Quebec. Since that time the situation has become so untenable that I have given up my company’s Firearms Business Licence and will now operate without one.
My company is involved in three main fields of work: 1) the design, manufacture and sale of video-based firearms judgment training systems for the training of armed professionals; 2) the production of video training scenarios for use with our training systems and; 3) the training of armed guards for their Authorization To Carry (ATC) handguns and the training and certification of firearms instructors who in turn certify their employees for their ATC’s.
I also teach civilian firearms owners use of force and defensive use of firearms so that those contemplating the use of a firearm in self defense have the same level of knowledge and training as armed guards. Lack of this knowledge and training leads to misuse of firearms by those who attempt to defend themselves in dire circumstances. This training is required under the Firearms Act’s Regulations as a prerequisite for anyone being issued an ATC for protection of life. It is also training that is virtually impossible for a civilian to acquire anywhere in Canada. Details of the training program I had been offering are available at www.caps-training.com
In 1999 I obtained a Firearms Business Licence to cover all of the activities of our company. Ten years later the CFO of Quebec decided arbitrarily to remove from our business permit the provision that allows us to possess prohibited weapons for the supply of training materials to law enforcement or the military in Canada or for the supply of training materials to law enforcement or the military of a country other than Canada. These legitimate activities are specifically designated as Prescribed Purposes under Regulations 22(m) and 22(n) of subsection 11(2) of the Act.
The CFO made this change to our permit in spite of the fact that we sell our product to law enforcement agencies around the world and had sold over 50 systems during that ten-year period. The CFO did not like the fact that we were the only business in Canada that had these prescribed purposes on our permit for our specific circumstances and was therefore removing them. They did so in spite of the fact that we submitted proof that our law enforcement clients were purchasing our products because we continually develop new and improved systems to offer them as upgrades. We also provided the CFO’s office with proof that we received Research and Development Tax Credits from both the Federal and Quebec Governments over a three-year period for R&D that required firearms of all types.
I believe that the CFO removed our ability to test our systems in an attempt to shut down our simulator manufacturing business. It is important to remember that our Business Licence continued to allow us to possess all types of weapons including fully automatic weapons for the purposes of motion picture production, just not the development and testing of life-saving training equipment.
This is not the only time that the CFO has acted unreasonably. In 2009 the CFO decided to remove from our permit the possession of non-restricted firearms for training purposes while allowing us to continue to possess restricted weapons and prohibited handguns for those purposes. They did this in an effort to stop a major armored car company that I was supplying training to from continuing to carry non-restricted shotguns in their trucks. The CFO felt that by stopping the training the company would comply with their wishes. The shotguns continued to be carried and the training was carried out with the company’s guns rather than with those supplied by my company.
On February 3rd of this year, during the renewal process for our current licence, representatives of the CFO’s office met with me to discuss the training program that I offer civilians. They explained to me that self-defence was not an approved purpose for a civilian owning a firearm and as such training in the defensive use of firearms is not approved on any range under their control. They went on to say that they would impose sanctions on any club that allowed my courses to be held and that the paper screen on which we project our training scenarios is not an approved target in Quebec and is therefore forbidden.
They explained that they would inform our insurer that any potential injury that occurred during our training should not be covered as it occurred during “unapproved suspect activity”. They also stated that teaching use of force without actually being a lawyer could result in charges. This, in spite of the fact that the same training program has been authorized by them to be taught by me since 1999 and that my program has directly led to the issuance of hundreds of ATC’s to armed personnel by the Quebec CFO over that same time frame.
They made a point of explaining to me that they prosecute any person who removes a restricted weapon from storage to defend themselves regardless of circumstances. It is their position that doing so requires an ATC even if this occurs at the residence where the firearm is registered. I produced a letter written by Kim Campbell, then Minister of Justice and the original author of the storage regulations that is included in my book from 1994 “Reasonable and Necessary, Defensive Firearms Ownership and Use in Canada” which states the following: “ Where deadly force is used lawfully, as provided for in section 34, the justification of that section would extend to the offence of having a loaded firearm in a place where discharge is not permitted.” The representatives of the CFO’s office proceeded to explain that they don’t see it that way and the point of view of the author of the legislation and therefore Parliament is irrelevant.
As you can see CFO’s seem to feel they can do as they please, the Firearms Act as it now exists allows them this latitude.
The CFO agreed to renew our Firearms Business Licence so that we could continue to produce video under Section 22(f) of the Regulations and offer training to holders of Firearms Business Licences who require training for their armed personnel under Section 22(x) but would be adding additional clauses to our licence stating that the training of civilians was not permitted.
They inquired as to how we continued to develop and test our simulators without Sections 22(m) and 22(n) that they had removed from our licence in 2009. I explained that we simply set up a camera and produced a video entitled “How to test a CAPS Simulation System” every time we needed to do a test. Our Business Licence permits us to use all classes of firearms for video and film production under Section 22(f).
They informed me that they did not like the fact that I was bending the rules to do our testing. I responded that I did not like arbitrary decisions attempting to close up a legitimate business.
At this point I explained that my name is now included on two other separate Business Licences in Quebec for the purposes of motion picture production and I can therefore continue to utilize all types of weapons for the video production my company requires simply by making use of either of those permits without having my own.
As the CFO is now attempting to further limit my Business Licence with regards to training I explained that any training I do for Business Licence holders who have armed personnel can be accomplished with firearms they supply. Under these circumstances I no longer required a Business Licence of any kind to continue to operate my business and therefore do not wish to renew. Our current permit expires on February 28th.
My civilian use of force and defensive firearms training will continue in Quebec using non-controlled firearms that do not require live ammunition or firing ranges. As I explained to the CFO’s representatives, in Canada guns are controlled, knowledge is not.
Minister Blaney, it is more than obvious that the Chief Firearms Officer of Quebec has overstepped their bounds far too many times. They need to be removed and the Firearms Act rewritten to protect Canadians from the criminal misuse of firearms while protecting law-abiding citizens and businesses from arbitrary rulings, unjust persecution and prosecution.
As I explained in my letter of last March, it would be a truly unfortunate sign of the times if the Canadian Academy of Practical Shooting Inc. had to operate from a Vermont address to supply life-saving training and equipment that was once proudly built in Canada. We are now fast approaching that crossroad.
DEFENCE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CANADA | NEWS | THE EVOLUTION OF THE SMART GUN
Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC) and Colt Canada have developed an integrated weapon/rifle prototype for the Canadian Armed Forces.
View it at: www.drdc-rddc.gc.ca
10 YEARS IN PRISON FOR OWNING THIS 250-YEAR-OLD FLINTLOCK GUN? (By Daniel Jennings | Off the Grid News | February 18, 2015)
A retired school teacher is facing as much as a 10-year prison sentence because he had an unloaded 250-year-old antique pistol in his car.
Four sheriff deputies took 72-year-old Gordon Van Gilder from his home in handcuffs because of the incident, even though Van Gilder voluntarily told the police he had the pistol.
“Beware of New Jersey, don’t come here, don’t live here,” Van Gilder told NRA News.
Van Gilder was arrested and charged with a felony because he was carrying a pistol without a permit. New Jersey’s gun control laws have no exemptions for antique weapons. Van Gilder bought the pistol to add to his collection of 18th century objects.
“I’m charged with a felony that could ruin my life,” Van Gilder said. “That could hurt my pension that I spent 34 years acquiring. I couldn’t vote now.”
His attorney was just as appalled.
“He’s facing up to 10 years in state prison with a minimum of mandatory three and a half to five years, no chance of parole, because New Jersey’s modern handgun law includes antique handguns,” Van Gilder’s attorney, Evan F. Nappen, told NRA News.
Nappen noted that antique firearms are exempt from federal gun control laws.
Arrested for Owning a Collector’s Item
“Apparently there must be a lot of drive-by flintlock shootings in North Jersey to account for the fear the state has of ancient collectible pistols,” Van Gilder said.
How To Hide Your Guns, And Other Off-Grid Caches…
Van Gilder’s nightmare began when a Cumberland County Sheriff’s Deputy pulled him over on a minor traffic infraction in November 2014. The deputy asked Van Gilder what he had in the car, and Van Gilder mentioned the gun. The deputy let Van Gilder go, but the next day sheriff deputies came to his house and arrested him.
The weapon Van Gilder was arrested for carrying is a flintlock, a single shot black-powder weapon that can take a full minute to load. To load the weapon you have to take off the barrel and then use a special rod to ram a ball and powder into it. The pistol is similar to the weapons used in the American Revolution. The flintlock is so hard to load that it is designed to use as a club, making it a lousy self-defense weapon.
Nappen said a prosecutor had told him the sheriff’s department is doing ballistics testing on the pistol in an effort to determine if it was used in any crimes. A firearms expert interviewed by the NRA’s Ginny Simone called the testing a waste of time. Ballistics tests do not work on flintlocks because they do not have a rifled barrel which leaves marks for testing.
Not the Only One
Simply carrying a pistol can be considered a felony in New Jersey. In 2013, single mother Shaneen Allen was held in jail for 40 days in Atlantic County, New Jersey, because she was carrying a pistol for which she had a Pennsylvania concealed weapons permit that was not valid in New Jersey, as Off The Grid News reported.
Carrying any pistol without a permit is a second degree felony in New Jersey. The law makes no exemptions for antiques or non-working weaponry.
Not surprisingly, Van Gilder wants to leave New Jersey. He is not alone; moving company United Van Lines reported that more people are leaving New Jersey than any other state.
The Van Gilder Legal Defense Fund has raised $3,315 for Van Gilder’s Defense at GoGetFunding.com.
See the story: http://www.offthegridnews.com/2015/02/18/10-years-in-prison-for-owning-this-250-year-old-flintlock-gun/
MINISTRY: DOCTORS MAY GET ACCESS TO GUN REGISTRY (By Czech News Agency | PraguePost.com | February 26, 2015)
Stricter rules are being debated in wake of Czech mass shooting in a pub
Prague, Feb 25 (CTK) — The Czech Interior Ministry plans to enable doctors’ access to the arms register to check whether their patients hold a firearm license, in reaction to the Tuesday massacre in Uherský Brod, south Moravia, Hana Malá, from the Interior Ministry’s press section, told the Czech News Agency.
At present only general practitioners, who issue a certificate on health capability to applicants for a firearm license, have information about such license holders in the CzechRepublic.
The Interior Ministry also wants to extend the police powers to immediately seize firearms and a license from a person sent to an extraordinary medical checkup.
Applicants for a firearm license must meet basic conditions, including Czech citizenship, a minimum age, health capability, legal capacity, a clean criminal record and reliability. Then they must pass a special exam consisting of a theoretical and a practical part.
If firearm license holders do not meet any of the required conditions any longer, the police can suspect their license.
A lone shooter killed eight people and then himself in a restaurant in Uherský Brod, south Moravia, on Tuesday. The man, aged 63, was probably mentally unstable.
Regional police chief Jaromír Tkadlecek told reporters today that the investigation into the mass murder would last weeks up to months. The police will release further information during the investigation in the following days, he added.
Available information about the gunman from Uherský Brod indicates that he was mentally ill.
Interior Minister Milan Chovanec called him “an unbalanced person” on Twitter. Chovanec also stressed in the media that the police must first investigate whether the shooter possessed the two guns he used for the crime legally and whether he was a legal firearm license holder.
Defense and Security Industry Association (DSIA) President Jirí Hynek said such a person can be stripped of a firearm license legally.
“There must be a certain community system like elsewhere in the world. If citizens have a feeling that another citizen could potentially threaten them, they must report it to the municipal authority,” Hynek said.
If someone is found guilty of the violation of a civic cohabitation misdemeanor, they can lose the firearm license.
The Czech legislation is strict in this respect, Hynek said.
The requirements for a firearm license holder, concerning health capability are also strict. General practitioners can ask the applicants for psychological or any other medical checkups, Malá added.
THANKS FOR YOUR SUPPORT!
The CSSA is the voice of the sport shooter and firearms enthusiast in Canada. Our national membership supports and promotes Canada’s firearms heritage, traditional target shooting competition, modern action shooting sports, hunting, and archery. We support and sponsor competitions and youth programs that promote these Canadian heritage activities.
To join or donate to the CSSA, visit: https://cssa-cila.org/membership/
Subscribe /Unsubscribe to the CSSA-CILA E-NEWS on our website.
SUBSCRIBE | UNSUBSCRIBE BY EMAIL:
To subscribe send an email to: mailto:cssa-cila-e-news-subscribe@mail.cssa-cila.org
To unsubscribe send an email to: mailto:cssa-cila-e-news-unsubscribe@mail.cssa-cila.org
