Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer

Team CSSA E-News – October 15, 2015


If you own a firearm, if you hunt, if you target shoot or collect firearms, it is critical that you vote on Monday, October 19th.

For gun owners, sitting out this election is NOT an option. Both the NDP and the Liberals are committed to damaging our proud heritage and unique culture of safety.

Thomas Mulcair and the NDP have been clear:

“The NDP’s position on the gun registry is that we favour the registration of guns.”

“We will bring in something that allows the police to track every gun in Canada.”

The Liberals under Justin Trudeau will do even worse. First, they will repeal Bill C-42, implement the horrendous United Nations gun-marking scheme and gut the Firearms Advisory Committee. Trudeau has said he is both for AND against the gun registry – depending upon whether he’s speaking in the Province of Quebec or elsewhere in Canada. If for no reason but a statement of intention, Liberal Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette’s Senate Bill S-231 was intended to ban ALL firearms except those she deemed “acceptable” for hunting.

Said Hervieux-Payette: “I developed Bill S-231 around the idea that all firearms should be prohibited except those used in sport shooting, in a controlled environment such as shooting clubs, as well as hunting firearms and those that are collectors’ items.

The Green Party? While their actual platform is vague on the gun issue, some of its electoral hopefuls are not. Saskatchewan’s Green Party Candidate Elaine Hughes made it clear where the Greens stand on guns.

Said Hughes: “If I was elected, I would support strict measures … to ban handguns, semi-automatic rifles and assault rifles.”

Then there are Green Party Leader Elizabeth May’s own words: “But the more that we restrict access to handguns, long guns, the better.”

If Canadians want to preserve their firearm freedoms, they have only one choice on October 19th. That choice is to vote for the Conservative candidate in your riding.


Only the Conservatives are committed to defending our proud hunting and shooting heritage.

Only the Conservatives are committed to defending civilian firearm ownership in Canada. From the CPC election policy document:

“We recognize the legitimacy of private ownership of firearms and will resist any domestic or international pressure to the contrary.”

Please watch all of our CSSA election 2015 videos on YouTube. They underscore just how important it is for every single gun owner in Canada to show up and vote on October 19th.

Justin Trudeau Flip Flips on Gun Registry

Justin Trudeau Would Ban Firearms and Licensed Gun Owners

Justin Trudeau and Liberal Party would Ban Guns

Thomas Mulcair Will Track Every Gun in Canada

Thomas Mulcair Assault Weapons and Pterodactyls

Stephen Harper Defends Rights of Gun Owners

Stephen Harper Understands Rural Canadians

To find out where you can vote on Monday, October 19 visit the Elections Canada link:

This October 19th … VOTE! Your sport, your heritage and your firearms depend on it.



Ask yourself what a Liberal or NDP government (or coalition government!!) would mean for firearm freedoms in Canada. With a three-way race shaping up, we need more than ever to get out and vote – and to make that vote count.

Don’t end up at a polling station without being registered or with out-of-date information attached to your name. If you aren’t registered or need to update your information, it is really easy to do so on the Elections Canada website. Here’s the link to check your status:



Do you want to tell your children and your grandchildren that you were “on the front line” protecting their rights?

Team CSSA is working to re-energize and re-focus our corps of volunteer regional directors. Would you like to be part of our exciting new RD Program and help represent Canada’s greatest firearm organization across the nation?

It will require some definite, but modest, time commitments. Time well spent with friendly firearm owners representing the Canadian Shooting Sports Association. If you’re interested, please send an email to Christine Scott at

Thank you!




You can win this incredible combo: a Tikka T3 Camo rifle in your choice of available calibres AND a Scorpion Optics Venom Hi Grade 4-16×44 AE SF with rings, donated to the CSSA by the good folks at Scorpion Optics.

For the serious shooter wanting a super-accurate, camo rifle with a non-reflective stainless steel barrel, a camo-patterned fibreglass-reinforced copolymer stock (Realtree Hardwoods® HDTM) and a superb optical sight on top, this combination can’t be beat.

All you have to do is make a $10 donation to the CSSA, and we will give you a free chance to win this great gun/scope hunting rig. Better yet, we will give you THREE chances with a $20 donation, TEN for $50 and a $100 donation can get you TWENTY chances and a free one-year membership to the Canadian Shooting Sports Association.

This beautiful hunting combo will find a new home November 1, 2015.

Please send your payment to:

Double Tap c/o CSSA, 116 Galaxy Blvd, Etobicoke ON  M9W 4Y6

or call 1-888-873-4339.

Donate online at

Please note: the winner must have a valid Canadian firearms license.


“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



FEDERAL ELECTION 2015 – DUCEPPE TAKES AIM AT TRUDEAU OVER SAUDI ARMS SALES (By Steven Chase/Daniel LeBlanc | The Globe and Mail | October 13, 2015)

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau is being accused of misleading Canadians after he played down the federal government’s controversial $15-billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia – including comments where the politician dismissed the combat vehicles as merely “jeeps.”

Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe, trying to make a political comeback in Quebec, is taking Mr. Trudeau to task over comments he made to a French-language talk show, Tout le monde en parle, that aired Sunday night on Radio-Canada. Mr. Trudeau, leading in the polls with less than a week to go before election day, has rejected the notion of cancelling the long-term deal to supply the Saudi kingdom with combat vehicles.

Critics including Amnesty International and Project Ploughshares, an anti-war group that tracks arms sales, have cited Saudi Arabia’s abysmal human-rights record and raised concerns about how this transaction appears to violate Canada’s export-control rules. A federal Crown corporation brokered the deal, which was struck after heavy lobbying of Riyadh by Stephen Harper’s Conservative government, and Ottawa is ultimately responsible for supplying the fighting machines to the Saudis.

Mr. Duceppe criticized Mr. Trudeau for a statement in which he tried to put distance between the light-armoured vehicles deal and Ottawa. The Liberal Leader said the transaction was “not an agreement between the Government of Canada and Saudi Arabia” but was a deal between “a manufacturing company” and the Saudis.

That isn’t true, the Bloc Leader noted.

“When he tells us it’s a private company only, he’s lying to us because it was done under the auspices of the Canadian Commercial Corporation, a Crown corporation,” Mr. Duceppe told reporters Monday in Mont-Laurier, Que.

He also took Mr. Trudeau to task for dismissing the military equipment in question as jeeps. The light-armoured vehicles made by General Dynamics Land Systems Canada, in London, Ont., are marketed as equipped with automatic weapons. The LAV 6.0 model is described as having “effective firepower to defeat soft and armoured targets.”

“Do you see jeeps like this on [Highway] 117?” he asked. “Have you ever seen a jeep like that?”

Major federal political parties are loath to criticize Mr. Harper’s Saudi deal because the manufacturing work will employ thousands of people in the London area and beyond, and any comments about cancelling it could affect their electoral chances in the Southwestern Ontario region.

Asked about his “jeep” comment at a campaign stop in Ottawa, Mr. Trudeau declined to elaborate and instead reverted to his standard talking points on the Saudi deal.

“The Liberal Party has been clear: We will not cancel the existing contracts,” he said. “We will, however, behave in a way that is transparent and open going forward, to ensure that Canadians have confidence that their government is abiding by the rules, principles and values that people expect of their government.”


PREDICTION: BERGEN LIKELY TO WIN BIG (Winnipeg Sun | October 11, 2015)

 Why are you the best person to elect in this riding and how would you improve it?

Candice Bergen (CPC)

“I’ve been honoured to stand up for the people and values of Portage-Lisgar in Ottawa. Whether it be funds for local infrastructure, supporting families through expanded and enhanced UCCB payments, or getting rid of the wasteful and ineffective long-gun registry, I’ve worked hard to get things done. While the opposition has been offering nothing but risky alternatives, I’ve been privileged to serve as a committed and outspoken advocate for my constituency, and I will continue to deliver concrete results for the people of Portage-Lisgar.”

Ken Werbiski (Lib)

“I believe that everyone should be treated fairly and with respect. I also believe that we can accomplish more together than we can alone. There needs to be a better, closer relationship with all levels of government, including municipal. In life, I find that working together produces the best outcomes. That is what I plan to do when I am elected. By investing in our communities and working together, we create better lives for everyone.”

Dean Harder (NDP

“I am a collaborator. As a farm operations manager, I have worked with a variety of people to gain positive solutions while making tough choices with short timelines. I would like to see the riding of Portage-Lisgar be a leader in the green energy revolution. This requires expanding educational opportunities and working with a Canada-wide vision. We need to offer better quality of life for our seniors and work opportunities for those families who choose to make their home here.”

Beverley Eert (Green)

“I am the best person to elect in Portage-Lisgar because, as a Green MP, I will be allowed to vote freely in Parliament for the best interests of my constituents. The economic base of Portage-Lisgar is agriculture and the biggest expense for farmers is energy. Through cutting-edge research and development, I intend to lead the way toward low-cost, alternate energy for the agricultural industry. I care deeply about our common future.”

2011 results

2011 election results:

Candice Bergen (Conservative) 76.0%

Mohamed Alli (NDP) 9.83%

M.J. Willard (Liberal) 6.27%

Matthew Friesen (Green) 5.64%

Jerome Dondo (Christian Heritage Party) 2.3%

2011 voter turnout: 59.4%


Average total household income: $66,503

Unemployment rate: 5.3%


Traditionally a right-wing riding for the past several decades, with few exceptions, this is considered among the safest Conservative seats in Manitoba. Conservative incumbent Candice Bergen claimed a commanding 76% of the vote in the 2011 election.

Our take

There are probably scenarios in which Bergen fails to deliver this seat for the Conservatives. She could reverse course and say she loved the long-gun registry and wants to bring it back. She could profess her undying devotion to Scientology and try to recruit local kids into the religion. Neither of those things are likely to happen, though, nor is any other scenario that ends in her defeat. Bergen is likely to win with the biggest plurality of any Manitoba candidate, Tory or otherwise.

See the link:



(By Will Bredderman | October 13, 2015)

NYPD Deputy Commissioner for Collaborative Policing Susan Herman today told a crowd of anti-gun violence advocates that gun buybacks—a program long employed by New York police and politicians to exchange firearms for cash in hopes of preventing shootings—do little to reduce the number of weapons on city streets.

Speaking at an event on gun policy at Hunter College hosted by Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, Ms. Herman argued that buybacks tend attract people crossing state lines in search of a quick buck, not city residents. Police Commissioner Bill Bratton appointed Ms. Herman, a criminal justice professor at Pace University, to help oversee Mayor Bill de Blasio’s new “neighborhood policing” program earlier this year.

“It has minimal impact,” she said. “Typically when we do gun buybacks, actually they’re often people from other states coming to give us—Pennsylvania, New Jersey people—coming into New York to sell their guns. That’s a good thing, it’s good for America to get more guns off the street. It doesn’t particularly reap a lot of benefits here in New York.”

Public Advocate Letitia James, whose former Brooklyn Council district has long suffered from outbreaks of gang violence, was quick to back up Ms. Herman’s assertions. She also said that, in her experience, the buybacks rake in weapons from financially strapped senior citizens.

“I’ve been involved in gun buybacks for 10 years. Most of the guns that we’ve, that we’ve been able to recover are guns that are owned by grandmothers and great-grandmothers, they hide them under their beds,” she said. “People tell me they need gun buybacks 12, or, months out of the year, they need it for food more than anything else.”

As an alternative to periodic buybacks, Ms. Herman instead recommended outreach to mothers, sisters and grandmothers who know that a young man in their home has a gun, and encouraging an open-door policy at the local precinct where they can turn over the weapon with no questions asked. She recommended that adults call the stationhouse to inform them they are en route with a firearm to surrender, and get the name of the officer to whom they speak.

“That should happen any time she has an awareness of that. Any time,” Ms. Herman said. “Nobody asks who you are, where you got it, anything. You should be able to turn in, get rid of the gun in your house any time you want.”

Jean Shafiroff, the Manhattan philanthropist at the event whose proposal for a holiday gun buyback prompted Ms. Herman’s remarks, told the Observer she remained undeterred in her idea. She said she hoped to roll out a novel program in Harlem this winter where residents could exchange their weapons for Christmas gifts.

“We can do something where, if you bring a gun, you get a brand new toy,” she said. “We have to make it safe for everybody. I know these children, their families don’t want their children to have guns, the children don’t want guns. There are a few of them that have them.”

See the story:



Paul’s moose and caribou adventure with Tombstone Outfitters continues in the Yukon. As Paul hunts hard he may just get his chance at a mature Yukon bull moose.

See the teaser:

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



Gun control in Britain passed in stages, beginning just after World War I and continuing in a reactionary fashion with increasing strictness through the 1990s.

When the final stage arrived in 1997, and virtually all handguns were banned via the Firearms Act, the promise was a reduction in crime and greater safety for the British people. But the result was the emergence of Britain as the “most violent country in Europe.”

Britain began placing restrictions on gun ownership after World War I with the Firearms Act of 1920. The passage of this act was emotionally driven, based in part on the public’s war-weariness and in part on the fear that an increased number of guns–guns from the battle field–would increase crime.

The Firearms Act of 1920 did not ban guns. Rather, it required that citizens who wanted a gun had to first obtain a certificate from the government. We see this same stage taking place in various places in the United States now, where a person who wants a firearm has to get a Fire Owner Identification Card (Illinois) or has to be vetted by police (Massachusetts) or both.

Thirteen years after the passage of the Firearms Act, British Parliament passed the Firearms and Imitation Firearms Bill, making the possession of a replica gun or a real one equally punishable unless the owner of either could show the lawful purpose for which he had it. (Sounds like California?) This was followed by the Firearms Act of 1937, which author Frank Miniter says “extended restrictions to shotguns and granted chief constables the power to add conditions to individual private firearm certificates.”

In the U.S., police departments in Massachusetts play the role Britain’s chief constables played and have final say on who can or can’t own a firearm. On July 25, Breitbart News reported that that Massachusetts police were pressing for “sole discretion” on who could own a long gun; they already had such discretion over who could own a handgun. On August 1, they received the power they sought.

Britain continued to issue firearm certificates as World War II set in. But by the time the war was over, the gun control mindset had permeated society to a point where self-defense was no longer a valid reason to secure a certificate for gun ownership.

Guns were simply for sport or for hunting.

In 1987, Michael Ryan shot and killed sixteen people in Hungerford, including his mother. He wounded fourteen others, then killed himself. According to the Library of Congress, Ryan used “lawfully owned” rifles to carry out the attack. Nevertheless, his attack prompted the passage of more laws in the form of the Firearms Act of 1988. This act “banned the possession of high-powered self loading rifles” and “burst-firing weapons,” and imposed “stricter standards for ownership” to secure a government certificate to own a shotgun.

In 1996, Thomas Hamilton walked into an elementary school in Dunblane, Scotland, and shot and killed “sixteen small children…and their teacher in the gym before killing himself.” He brought two rifles and four handguns to carry out the attack. All six guns were legally owned: Hamilton had fully complied with gun control statutes.

The Firearm Act of 1997 was passed while emotions ran high. Gun control proponents push for an all-out ban on private gun ownership, in the much the same way that Senator Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) reacted to the heinous crime at Sandy Hook Elementary by trying to ban approximately 150 different guns.

Yet the Firearm Act did not ban all guns, “but served to essentially prohibit the ownership of handguns in Britain” and to make the acquisition of certificate to possess a long gun an onerous and time-consuming one. Much the same as the onerous and time-consuming process now burdening law-abiding DC residents seeking a gun in the home for self-defense.

And what has been the outcome of passing more laws in Britain to remedy the fact that other laws were ignored or broken? It has not been good.

In 2009, twelve years after the Firearms Act of 1997 was passed, Daily Mail Online reported that Britain was “the most violent country in Europe.” They also reported that Britain’s home figures showed “the UK [had] a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and South Africa.”

See the story:



On October 10, comedian Amy Schumer appeared in a Saturday Night Live (SNL) skit to mock women and families who use guns for sport and self-defense.

The skit opened with seemingly random scenes of a couple sitting down for a romantic dinner at a restaurant, a grandfather and grandson, a woman jogging by herself in a park, a man leaning over his desk in frustration, a boy trying to work up the courage to talk to a girl at a party, and a husband climbing into a taxi to take his pregnant wife to the hospital. In the background, the narrator says, “Whatever you’re waiting for, whatever you face, whatever you’re looking for, there are things we all share.”

The man at the restaurant then hands the woman a boxed gift, and the narrator says, “Love.” Then, the skit cuts to a grandfather going to get something for his grandson, and the narrator says, “Family.” And on and on it went with each scenario until the camera comes back to the couple in the romantic restaurant, where the woman—Amy Schumer—has opened the gift box to reveal a pistol, and the narrator says, “Guns.”

Schumer holds what appears to be a Glock 19 up in the air, then throws her arms around her man and says, “Baby, I love it!”

One by one, the other individuals who had been introduced appear—the black grandfather hands the grandson a revolver, the woman jogging in the park pulls up snub-nosed revolver and jogs with a smile, the pregnant woman bends over and lifts a deer rifle out of the taxi when she gets to the hospital, and the boy who could not find any common ground for approaching the girl is shown lying on his back—side by side with her—shooting into the air with a pair of revolvers.

Moreover, after the pregnant woman gives birth, the skit shows the father giving the newborn a two-shot derringer as a gift.

The thrust of the skit was clear—to mock women who buy guns for self-defense, to mock families that pass the importance of guns on from one generation to the next, and especially to mock those who understand the metaphysical ties between guns and America’s founding. The skit lumped all these various categories of people together and painted them as those who derive meaning in life by being armed.

It is ironic to note that Schumer frequently kept her finger on the trigger of the Glock during the skit, the grandfather kept his finger on the trigger as he handed the revolver to his grandson, the female jogger kept her finger on the trigger as she jogged with a revolver in hand, and the pregnant wife kept her finger on the trigger of the deer rifle as she was wheeled through the hospital in a wheelchair.

Schumer’s cousin, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), has been relentlessly pushing gun control since the attack on Sandy Hook Elementary but to no avail. Perhaps this skit was also a way to get back at those armed women, families, and college students who want to preserve their right to self-defense rather than sacrifice it on the altar of political correctness.

See the story:




THE ‘GUN CONTROL’ FARCE (By Thomas Sowell | | October 13, 2015)

President Obama’s intrusion into the mourning community of Roseburg, Oregon, in order to promote his political crusade for stronger gun control laws, is part of a pattern of his using various other sites of shooting rampages in the past to promote this long-standing crusade of the political left.

The zealotry of gun control advocates might make some sense if they had any serious evidence that more restrictive gun control laws actually reduce gun crimes. But they seldom even discuss the issue in terms of empirical evidence.

Saving lives is serious business. But claiming to be saving lives and refusing to deal with evidence is a farce. Nor is the Second Amendment or the National Rifle Association the real issue, despite how much the media and the intelligentsia focus on them.

If there is hard evidence that stronger gun control laws actually reduce gun crimes in general or reduce murders in particular, the Second Amendment can be repealed, as other Amendments have been repealed. Constitutional Amendments exist to serve the people. People do not exist to be sacrificed to Constitutional Amendments.

But if hard evidence shows that restrictions on gun ownership lead to more gun crimes, rather than less, then the National Rifle Association’s opposition to those restrictions makes sense, independently of the Second Amendment.

Since this all boils down to a question of hard evidence about plain facts, it is difficult to understand how gun control laws should have become such a heated and long-lasting controversy.

There is a huge amount of statistical evidence, just within the United States, since gun control laws are different in 50 different states and these laws have been changed over time in many of these states. There are mountains of data on what happens under restrictive laws and what happens when restrictions are lifted.

Statistics on murder are among the most widely available statistics, and among the most accurate, since no one ignores a dead body. With so many facts available from so many places and times, why is gun control still a heated issue? The short answer is that most gun control zealots do not even discuss the issue in terms of hard facts.

The zealots act as if they just know — somehow — that bullets will be flying hither and yon if you allow ordinary people to have guns. Among the many facts this ignores is that gun sales were going up by the millions in late 20th century America, and the murder rate was going down at the same time.

Among the other facts that gun control zealots consistently ignore are data on how many lives are saved each year by a defensive use of guns. This seldom requires actually shooting. Just pointing a loaded gun at an assailant is usually enough to get him to back off, often in some haste.

There have been books and articles based on voluminous statistics, including statistics comparing gun laws and gun crime rates in different countries, such as “Guns and Violence” by Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm of George Mason University. Seldom do these factual studies back up what the gun control zealots are saying.

Why would an ultimately factual question about the consequences of gun control laws divide people along ideological lines? Only if at least one set of people were more devoted to their vision than to the facts.

This shows up when gun control zealots are asked whether whatever new law they propose would have prevented the shooting rampage that they are using as a stage from which to propose a new clampdown on gun ownership. Almost always, the new law being proposed would not have made the slightest difference. 

That too is part of the farce. A deadly farce.

So is the automatic assertion that whoever engaged in a shooting rampage was a madman. Yet these supposedly crazy shooters are usually rational enough to choose some “gun-free zone” for their murderous attacks. They seem more rational than gun control zealots who keep creating more “gun-free zones.”

Gun control zealots are almost always people who are lenient toward criminals, while they are determined to crack down on law-abiding citizens who want to be able to defend themselves and their loved ones.

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. His Web site is

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


[mc4wp_form id="461" element_id="style-9"]

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

Website by mango media