Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer

Team CSSA E-News – August 30, 2015


Firearm owners have become complacent. After many years of respect shown to our community by the Harper government, we have begun to believe that firearms ownership in Canada is safe. It is not. Not even close.

The antis are working on several fronts: at the United Nations, in municipalities and, of course, within the opposition parties. Members of Parliament like Liberal Adam Vaughan and NDP Randall Garrison assail our community at every opportunity, while known enemies of firearm owners like former MP Liberal Mark Holland are attempting to get re-elected.

If you get nothing else from this commentary, know this: WE ARE NOT OUT OF THE WOODS. And if you want to keep your guns after the next federal election, you should be thinking long and hard about this.

The NDP?

Thomas Mulcair: “I think that it is possible to provide the police with the tools to better protect the public and themselves by making sure they’re able to follow every gun, and it doesn’t have to be the registry as it was before. But it does have to be a form that allows the governments, federal and provincial, to keep track of those guns. That’s our bottom line.”

The NDP leader insists the police need to track every single firearm in the nation. .An NDP government under Thomas Mulcair will, at a minimum, bring back the failed long-gun registry, sign the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty and implement the industry-crippling U.N. Marking System.

The Liberals?

A Liberal government under Justin Trudeau wouldn’t bother with the long-gun registry. They will go straight to banning guns. Here it is, straight from the mouth of Justin Trudeau himself:

There are many different ways, jurisdictions around the world are looking into gun control. A lot can be done around classification [of firearms], a lot can be done around proper review of people wishing to … purchase firearms.”

What Trudeau’s veiled language means is both simple and draconian. He will change the classification of certain firearms so that they are effectively banned in Canada. Once he’s done with banning guns, then he will go after gun owners by “reviewing” their licence applications and revoking those he deems unacceptable.

That’s a two-step process to end gun ownership in Canada – a two-step process Justin Trudeau seems all too happy to implement.

Happy, that is, unless he’s far more interested in banning half the firearms in Canada overnight through Liberal Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette’s Bill S-231:

I developed Bill S-231 around the idea that all firearms should be prohibited except those used in sport shooting …” said Senator Hervieux-Payette.

The NDP under Thomas Mulcair appears willing to move slightly slower towards confiscating our firearms, but don’t be fooled. His end game is the same: to eliminate private gun ownership in Canada.

That leaves only one political party for gun owners to support: the Conservative Party of Canada under the leadership of Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Some gun owners may stop reading now, and that’s a shame.

Their willful blindness means their vote or lack of one will help those who would end private gun ownership in Canada. Is that really what we, as freedom-loving firearm owners, want?

While most would agree that the Conservatives haven’t reformed Canada’s gun legislation as much as we would have liked, it’s a far cry from calling the Conservatives the enemy of Canadian gun owners as some are wont to do.

Those gun owners, unhappy with Harper’s Conservative Party, are perhaps not giving the Conservatives their due.

The Conservative Government of Canada is one of the only governments in history to revoke the registration of firearms once implemented nationwide. That is no small feat. That same government then fought the Province of Quebec all the way to the Supreme Court to ensure Quebec gun owners would live free of a long-gun registry – just like the rest of Canada.

The Conservatives removed paperwork restrictions designed solely to make sport shooting and hunting more onerous. They passed legislation permitting them to reverse silly edicts made by Chief Firearms Officers across Canada.

Again, these are no small feats with a mainstream media that hates guns almost as much as it hates gun owners.

There are those who complain that Stephen Harper and the Conservatives have not kept their promises. Indeed, there is some truth to this, but the fact remains we are much better off than we were before the CPC tenure.

Acknowledging that political reality will offend a few firearm owners – of that there is little doubt. That sense of offense doesn’t make the statement or the reality any less true.

There is a single mainstream political party in this federal election that views Canada’s most law-abiding citizens, its licensed firearm owners, as ALLIES  – not criminals. ONE. That party is not the Liberals, and it most certainly is not the NDP. It’s the Conservative Party of Canada led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Canada’s Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney said: “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.”

If you want to make a positive impact in this election, donate your time, your talent and your treasure to the only political party not actively seeking to destroy Canada’s proud heritage of firearms ownership.

I don’t want to feed paranoia, but as prime minister I can tell you I share the frustrations of our caucus members,” said Harper, before alluding to “bureaucratic initiatives that we think are effectively trying to put the long gun registry back in through the back door.” “This is not something we can tolerate.”

The Conservative Party of Canada has accomplished a lot for gun owners over the past number of years – more than any other government in the history of this nation.

We know there is much more work to be done. The Conservative government under Stephen Harper knows it too, and it is counting on us to keep our Canada on the right track.


“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



FIREARMS REGISTRATION WITH CANADIAN MP GARRY BREITKREUZ (By Jason Selmes | Australian Hunting Podcast #96 | August 28, 2015)

Garry shares his 25+ years of political experience on:

Why he was passionate about gun rights

The failings of firearms registration

The pros and cons of firearms registration

Quebec and the fight for firearms data

Garry’s meeting with Australian politicians

What he liked about Australia

Listen to this new episode of the Australian Hunting Podcast:



The socialist NDP’s 2015 “Policy Book” contains a proposal to “enable all municipalities, provinces, and territories to implement a ban on handguns.” This follows many times its leader Thomas Mulcair has called for a registration of all firearms via a “gun registry,” ostensibly in the interests of public safety.

On December 3, 2014, nearing the December 6 anniversary of the Montreal Massacre in 1989, Muclair said, “For the NDP, the obligation of result is that the police are able to track every gun. That has to be there both for public protection and for the protection of the police themselves.” NDP support for federal firearm registration is striking considering the $2 billion boondoggle of a previous attempt at such a venture.

According to the Canadian Shooting Sports Association, the Conservative Party of Canada has been mostly “respectful of Canada’s firearms’ community.” The CSSA contrasted this with the NDP’s support of the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty, and how subscription to it would “abdicate Canada’s legislative sovereignty to the UN.” Both the Liberals and Greens support the ATT and call for Canada to join it and implement its measures.

According to Statistics Canada, firearm-related homicides decreased 24 percent from 2012 to 2013 (the most recent year of available data), from 172 to 131. For the past twenty years, handguns were used in about one quarter of firearm-related homicides. The year 2013 saw the lowest rate of firearm-related homicides since data was first made available in 1974. Federal regulations pertaining to firearms ownership in Canada already require licensing, which requires a two-day (typically done on weekends) course. Background checks are also required.

See the story:



Sometimes people can’t help themselves.

It is like young kids who spot the wasp’s nest and must find a stick to poke it. The danger is obvious, but there is no stopping anyone, regardless of the danger, risk or consequences.

This was the case last week at Port Hope council as politicians tried to introduce a new gun control bylaw.

It is suppose to consolidate and update two previous bylaws written in the 1960s, leftovers from the amalgamation in 2001.

Instead of a simple clearing up some legislation, it has created a maelstrom.

One of the changes is a reference in the old Hope Township bylaw referring to the Summary Convictions Act, which no longer exists.

The old Hope Township bylaw also refers only to 22-calibre rifles, whereas the new bylaw talks about other firearms, like air guns, crossbows and any other weapons.

The fines will also increase to $350 from $300.

And, while the municipal staff and politicians consulted with lengthy list of various institutions, like the Port Hope Police and the RCMP, it failed to talk to the people being impacted directly: hunters.

Now, residents in Port Hope are very active in local politics. So, it is not unusual for a group to show up to a council meeting. But up to 126 people packed into the council chambers, according to one report. There is an obvious sign of trouble.

Petitions are being circulated. A Facebook page in opposition to the bylaw is online. And, the former mayor and the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters joined in against it complete with presentations to council.

It is not rocket science to figure out anything to do with gun control is going to be contentious. Thanks to the American gun lobby, Canadian hunters are emboldened. (?- ED)

While Canadians do not have the same constitutional argument to own a gun, the veracious defence of gun ownership is present. Since the gun registry debate started in the early 1990s, hunters are very sensitive to anything remotely regulating their use or ability to own a gun.

See the story:



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:

 Canada in the Rough can be found on OLN, WILD TV, and CHEX. For a full schedule, visit:


THE U.S. MUST UPHOLD THE ARMS TRADE TREATY’S LIMITS AT THE FIRST CONFERENCE OF STATES PARTIES (By Theodore R.. Bromund, Ph.D. | The Heritage Foundation | Issue Brief #4456 | Arms Control and Nonproliferation | August 21, 2015)

The first Conference of States Parties (CSP) to the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) will be held in Cancun, Mexico, on August 24–27, 2015. This CSP will establish the rules of procedure for this and all future CSPs, decide how to organize and fund the treaty secretariat, adopt procedures for the reporting mandated by the treaty, and perhaps begin the campaign to amend the treaty.

At the CSP, the U.S. needs to resist efforts to set precedents and create institutions that could be used to expand or reinterpret the treaty. The U.S. delegation should respect Congress’s opposition to funding the secretariat and, above all, emphasize that the treaty is the creation of U.N. member states and is to be implemented by only those states, not by the treaty secretariat or by a coalition of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).

The Rules of Procedure

Article 17 of the ATT requires the states party to the treaty to convene a CSP no later than one year after the ATT entered into force, which occurred on December 24, 2014. In the informal consultations and formal Preparatory Committee meetings in advance of the Cancun CSP, the drafting of the rules of procedure for the CSP has been one of the most controversial subjects.

These rules are particularly important because they will guide all future CSPs, not just the Cancun CSP. In theory, the states parties could change the rules later, but in practice, this will be difficult. The rules that are adopted at Cancun will therefore shape the outcome of the entire treaty process. In the preliminary meetings, the rules have been controversial for two reasons.

First, current draft rules require the CSP to “make every effort to achieve consensus on matters of substance”—in the U.N., “consensus” means no nation objects—but ultimately allow a decision by a two-thirds majority vote of the states party to the treaty. This means that a two-thirds majority could amend it after the treaty opens for amendments in December 2020. Matters of procedure are to be decided by a simple majority vote. Since the U.S. is not party to the ATT, it would not have a vote on matters of either substance or procedure.[1]

Second, the rules will govern how representatives of industry and civil society (i.e., NGOs) are allowed to participate in the CSPs. An earlier draft of the rules discriminated between “international coalitions of NGOs and associations representing industry” and individual representatives of civil society, including both NGOs and industry. International coalitions of NGOs and associations, like nations that have not signed the ATT, were allowed to attend the CSP as observers, while individual representatives were allowed only to attend plenary meetings of the CSP.

This distinction mattered because serious business is not normally conducted in plenary meetings. Those rules were designed to allow the pro-treaty Control Arms Coalition, in particular, privileged access to the entire CSP. The latest draft of the rules eliminates this discrimination, although it still seeks to constrain individual NGO representatives by requiring them, de facto, to work with a coalition of NGOs to be accredited to attend future CSPs.[2]

The Treaty Secretariat and the Financial Rules

Negotiations on the treaty secretariat have not advanced far. Negotiators have not yet decided where to locate the secretariat, how to structure and fund it, or what it is to do.

The nation of Trinidad and Tobago and the cities of Geneva and Vienna have offered to host the secretariat, while France has set out possible models for the secretariat’s structure. These models include anchoring the secretariat in the U.N., hosting it within an existing organization, or creating a stand-alone organization. Decisions about the secretariat’s location, structure, and duties, in turn, will affect its cost.[3]

With so much yet to be decided about the secretariat, it is no surprise that its financial rules are also in draft. The current proposal is to charge states parties (i.e., not the U.S.) a contribution on an adjusted version of the U.N. scale of assessment, meaning that the U.S. would be asked to pay up to 22 percent of the secretariat’s costs if the U.S. were to ratify the treaty.[4] Notably, the draft budgets the secretariat on an annual basis, which implies the need for an annual CSP to adopt a new budget.

Finally, while Article 18 of the treaty states that the secretariat is supposed to “be adequately staffed” and “have the necessary expertise” within “a minimized structure,” an interpretation of its functions as specified in Article 18 has not yet been established. As a result, the first head of the secretariat will be hired to serve only until the second CSP through a process that was nominally open to applications, although the job posting did not require applicants to have any actual knowledge of the arms trade.[5]

The Reporting Templates

The treaty requires states party to submit an initial report on measures taken to implement the treaty and an annual report on authorized or actual exports and imports of conventional arms. Sweden has taken the lead in drafting reporting templates. The template for the annual report of imports and exports is based on the definitions in the U.N. Register of Conventional Arms, under which reporting of small arms and light weapons is voluntary.[6] Nations and NGOs that support the treaty will likely press at the CSP to use definitions that would require nations to report their imports and exports of small arms.

Treaty Proponents Seek to Control and Reinterpret the ATT

The fundamental challenge before the U.S. in Cancun is to ensure that the CSP recognizes that the ATT is a treaty among states and that solely those states are responsible for implementing it. The NGOs that support the treaty have already engaged in an extended effort to deny skeptics the right to participate in its meetings, an effort that reflects their belief that, having secured the treaty they longed for through the U.N., they could now transform it into a political instrument under their control.

So far, this effort has not succeeded, but the distinction that the initial draft rules of procedure drew between international coalitions and individuals affiliated with a single NGO testifies that this effort has not been abandoned. By a similar token, basing the secretariat in Geneva, where both the Conference on Disarmament and a leading advocacy organization for the control of small arms are located, would send the incorrect message that the ATT is a disarmament treaty, not a treaty that applies to the legitimate international trade in arms.

Lastly, the option of placing the ATT Secretariat within an existing organization risks the selection of an inappropriate, NGO-dominated host, while housing it in the U.N. risks contaminating it with the U.N.’s disarmament agenda and opposition to legal private ownership of firearms. These options reflect the views of the NGOs that wish to take over and reinterpret the ATT.

What the U.S. Should Do

 For the U.S., limiting both the cost of the secretariat and the scale of assessments supporting it is an important objective. Particularly thanks to the leadership of Representative Mike Kelly (R–PA), Senator James Inhofe (R–OK), and Senator Jerry Moran (R–KS), the House of Representatives and Senate have repeatedly refused to fund the ATT Secretariat. It is vital to ensure that the secretariat is:

A small, stand-alone body, based either in Trinidad and Tobago or in Vienna;

Limited to carrying out administrative functions directly relevant to the treaty;

Given no responsibility for treaty implementation; and

Not allowed to engage in efforts to expand or reinterpret its mission.

By the same token, the U.S. should oppose rules of procedure that would effectively discriminate between NGO representatives that support the treaty and those that are skeptical. The same rules should apply to everyone, and no NGO representative should be placed on an equal status with U.N. member nations in the CSP or be required to collaborate with other NGOs to be accredited to a future CSP.

The U.S. should support the adoption of templates that do not mandate the reporting of information that is not required by the U.N. Register. The U.S. should discourage this CSP from discussing supposedly new developments in the arms trade or treaty amendments because amendments cannot be offered for more than five years. The U.S. should also press for a period of at least two years between CSPs.

Finally, the U.S. should push for the adoption of rules of procedure that require consensus agreement on matters of substance and a two-thirds majority on matters of procedure. The Obama Administration justified its decision to participate in the ATT negotiations on the basis that those negotiations would need to proceed by consensus. Accepting anything less than consensus on matters of substance would allow the treaty to be amended by majority rule and thus vitiate the Administration’s negotiating conditions.

—Ted R. Bromund, PhD, is Senior Research Fellow in Anglo–American Relations in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy, at The Heritage Foundation.

See the story:




Living as a firearms owner in the Great White North means having to deal with silly gun laws. It means having to apply for permits, registering some firearms and not others, and limiting some magazines and not others. It means that you can only shoot your handguns at a range, and that the guns your grandfather used to defend your country are unlikely to get handed down to you.

It means living in the shadow of the United States, with all that freedom bubbling just south of the border.

But there are some things we get in Canada that you don’t see stateside—and that’s what this article is about. In fact, Canada has lots to offer its firearms enthusiasts.

Our government is awfully concerned about automatic conversions, but beyond that it doesn’t care much where guns come from, or how many of their parts are made overseas. That means we can import and own the following unique foreign firearms—and more.

See the story:



Washington DC – -(  On August 24 2015 officials from the Obama administration will be attending the UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) conference in Mexico City.

The ATT was signed by Secretary of State John Kerry on September 25, 2013 but never ratified by the US Senate.

Nevertheless, Gun Owners of America reports that Obama officials will be in Mexico City for the conference.

Breitbart News previously reported that the ATT is an international gun control treaty designed to be implemented apart from, or in spite of, the general framework of governance for countries that are signatories to it.

Thus, while it will not do away with the Second Amendment on paper, it will subjugate the Second Amendment to the ATT’s gun controls if Obama administration officials return and implement the plans they will discuss in Mexico City.

ATT was pushed under the guise of stopping “small arms [and] light weapons” from crossing borders. And when it was being discussed in 2013, Breitbart News warned that firearm registration must proceed from the ATT if it is to be enforceable. After all, how can agents tasked with enforcing this treaty ascertain the origin of smuggled weapons without a comprehensive registration on file?

Moreover, the NRA pointed out that the treaty all but calls for a registry from the start inasmuch as it requires “importing countries to provide information to an exporting country regarding arms transfers, including ‘end use or end user documentation’ for a ‘minimum of ten years.’” This information on “end users” is not only a de-facto international gun registry but one that could be “made available to foreign governments.”

Because of all these troubling aspects of ATT, Gun Owners of America (GOA) warns that the Mexico City conference is part of a plan “to bring back the framework for a global gun control regime.” GOA encourages every gun owner to call his or her US Senator and ask that they stand strong against any international gun control recommendations or regulations that the Obama administration pushes after the August 24 ATT conference.

We must be diligent, especially because Democrat Senators have already shown their willingness to subjugate the Second Amendment to the ATT. Forty-four Democrat Senators voted for the ATT in April 2013.

Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter: @AWRHawkins.

See the story:




GROUP AIMS FOR 2016 MAINE VOTE ON GUN SALES BACKGROUND CHECKS (By Christopher Cousins | Bangor Daily News | August 24, 2015)

AUGUSTA, Maine — A new group announced Monday it wants Mainers in November 2016 to vote on a ballot question that would require criminal background checks for all gun sales.

Gun rights activists quickly labeled the effort as an example of Maine being targeted in a national effort for more gun control laws and predicted the referendum wouldn’t be successful in gun-friendly Maine.

The Maine Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense Fund submitted an application to the secretary of state’s office Monday to force a question onto the ballot with a petition drive. The group’s “Background Check Initiative” would require all sales and transfers of guns be conducted through licensed gun dealers, which would ensure criminal background checks are performed every time.

The application was filed by Judi and Wayne Richardson of South Portland, whose 25-year-old daughter, Darien, was killed during a home invasion in her Portland apartment in 2010. Her slaying remains unsolved and the gun used in the crime was transferred at a gun show without a background check, according to a news release.

The application was also signed by Bucksport police Chief Sean Geagan, domestic violence advocate Laurie Fogelman, Christopher Dickens of Blue Hill and Amy Fiorilli of Otis.

“While nothing can bring back our daughter, we can and must take action to prevent other parents from going through the senseless pain and suffering of having a child or loved one taken by gun violence,” Judi Richardson said in a written statement. “A deadly loophole in Maine law makes it easy for criminals, domestic abusers and people with dangerous mental illness to buy guns online and at trade shows with no background check and no questions asked. This ballot measure will close that loophole.”

The group suggests private gun sales can still take place but the buyer and seller would have to visit a gun dealer to perform the background check.

David Trahan, executive director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, said he expects substantial cash from national sources, such as former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has poured millions of dollars into gun control efforts in recent years, including a successful 2014 campaign to expand background checks in Washington state.

“We’re one of the safest states in the country and one of the highest gun ownership states,” Trahan said. “[Gun control groups] think we’re a cheap date up here and we’re going to be the subject of another national agenda.”

Trahan acknowledged universal background checks sound good to many people at first, but the issue is not as simple as it seems.

“It sounds good when you hear it, but its implementation is much more difficult,” Trahan said. “You have to wonder how you’re going to enforce it, which would require a serious expansion of law enforcement. That is why we don’t have a universal system nationally today.”

Fogelman, a retired executive director of The Next Step Domestic Violence Project, said states that require background checks experience lower rates of women being shot to death by intimate partners.

“This initiative will give Maine the chance to join the group of states where women are safer from gun violence,” Fogelman said.

The proposed initiative includes exceptions from the background check requirement for things such as transfer of firearms between family members, for immediate self-defense needs and for hunters who might loan a fellow hunter a gun for a day.

If its application is approved, Maine Moms Demand Action would have until Jan. 22, 2016, to collect and submit at least 61,123 valid signatures from Maine residents to qualify for the November 2016 ballot.

Maine has some of the more relaxed gun sales laws in the country. It was one of a dozen states that opted to make little or no changes to its gun laws in 2013 in response to federal funding incentives offered after the December 2012 Sandy Hook School massacre in Newtown, Connecticut.

From some perspectives, Maine relaxed its gun laws this year by repealing the requirement that gun owners obtain permits to carry concealed handguns. That new law goes into effect in October. Sen. Eric Brakey, R-Auburn, sponsored that bill. He said universal background checks are the first step toward creating a gun registry.

“When you really get underneath it and figure out what this is about, how do you verify a background check has happened at the point of sale unless you have a gun registry to accompany it?” Brakey said. “When we figure out this is a back-door way to create a gun registration, Maine people are going to reject it.”

Brakey, like Trahan, said he expects Bloomberg’s group, Everytown for Gun Safety, to fund the ballot initiative. There have been media reports that Nevada, Arizona and Maine are among the states Bloomberg’s group has been eyeing. Bloomberg’s group spent more than $4 million in Washington state last year and a press release circulated Monday bore “” email addresses.

“If Michael Bloomberg wants to come in and drop hundreds of thousands of dollars, as he has in the past, to try to get people to consent to background checks and a back-door gun registration, I think he’s going to waste a lot of money,” Brakey said.

Elizabeth Allen, a spokeswoman for Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America and Everytown for Gun Safety, said funding decisions will be made “along the way.”

“It will be a long campaign and the more than 60,000 supporters of background checks in Maine will be involved,” she wrote in response to questions from the BDN.

Nationally, background checks in gun sales are trending upwards, especially those involving people with mental health problems. Queries to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System went from 1.1 million in 2011 to 3.4 million in 2014. From 2010 to 2013, the number of people who were denied purchase of a firearm by the background check system increased from about 1,300 denials in 2010 to nearly 3,000 in 2013.

In Maine, the number of background checks for gun sales increased 76 percent between 1999 and 2014.

The Maine Legislature passed a law in 2013 that would have imposed fines on gun dealers found to have not required background checks in gun sales, but the law was vetoed by Gov. Paul LePage. The veto was sustained by the Legislature.

In 2013, a federal effort to require background checks died in the U.S. Senate.

See the story:



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 competitions, modern action shooting sports, hunting, and archery. We support and sponsor youth programs and competitions that promote these Canadian heritage activities.


To join or donate to the CSSA, visit:

Subscribe /Unsubscribe to the CSSA-CILA E-NEWS on our website.


To subscribe send an email to:

To unsubscribe send an email to:



116 Galaxy Boulevard, Etobicoke ON  M9W 4Y6

Phone: 416-679-9959 | Fax: 416-679-9910

Toll Free: 1-888-873-4339


Website: CSSA The Canadian Shooting Sports Assoc.


Continue Your Journey with CSSA

Renew your membership and sustain your passion for shooting sports.

To Preserve, Promote and Protect the Lawful Use and Ownership of Firearms in Canada

Contact CSSA

1143 Wentworth St W #204, Oshawa, ON L1J 8P7
Toll-Free: 1-888-873-4339
Phone: 905-720-3142


© 1998–2024. Canadian Shooting Sports Association | All Rights Reserved

Website by mango media