• Mossberg Owners is in the process of upgrading the software. Please bear with us while we transition to the new look and new upgraded software.

Trudolph Liberals Ban Legal Handgun Imports

I don't know what I would do without access to a handgun. It is bad enough wokeness is pervading retail stores (ie: local WMs no longer stock 9mm). Albertans I know on another forum certainly feel the way you do. :)
Its not the restriction of access to the handgun we already own(not yet), we can still and only take it to the range, gunsmith, gun show, cross borderwith (import license). Its that we will not be able to transfer them to family after death unless you do it now and or before a certain date allowed, the second thing is we can't get any more sweet handgun pew pews from the USA. SUCKS! Because I really like that new SA Prodigy DS 9mm.

That's ( ) how crazy this whole thing is, I now need a "import license" to bring back my already (purchased & registered) handguns back from the USA into the Country of importation and registration (Canada).
 
And it's not only transfers, but we're expecting a total ban on handgun sales in the near future too. Most imports have stopped, so it's only a matter of time before the legitimate supply dries up completely.

Let's hope we're on track to see all these attempts by Trudolph undone, at least back to 2015 when the Libs un-did the outgoing Conservatives Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act. And, hey if we're wishing for things I want a total re-write of Canada's firearms legislation and it not be codified in the Criminal Code of Canada. Would be cool to not be considered a criminal worthy of prosecution and jail if my license expires.

We have laws on the books for criminal misuse of firearms that suffice just fine if any judges care to enforce those.
 
The latest meeting, have a watch and prepare to be stupified.

HAPPENING TODAY: The Liberal government's anti-gun bill, C-21, is being examined by the House of Commons' Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security (SECU). See Notice of Meeting below for details.


https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/SECU/meeting-36/notice

Appearing
• Hon. Marco Mendicino, P.C., M.P., Minister of Public Safety

Witnesses Amended

Amended Section
Canada Border Services Agency
• Fred Gaspar, Vice-President, Commercial and Trade Branch
Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
• Rob Stewart, Deputy Minister
• Talal Dakalbab, Assistant Deputy Minister, Crime Prevention Branch Amended
Amended Section

Royal Canadian Mounted Police
• Bryan Larkin, Deputy Commissioner, Specialized Policing Services
• Kellie Paquette, Director General, Canadian Firearms Program
4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.

Witnesses
Canada Border Services Agency
• Fred Gaspar, Vice-President, Commercial and Trade Branch
Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
• Talal Dakalbab, Assistant Deputy Minister, Crime Prevention Branch

Royal Canadian Mounted Police
• D/Commr Bryan Larkin, Specialized Policing Services
• Kellie Paquette, Director General, Canadian Firearms Program




You can watch it live at 3:30 p.m. by clicking the link below:

 
Marco Mendicino attempts to defend Bill C-21, Committee on Public Safety & National Security (Oct 4)

The Public Safety Committee (SECU) spoke to Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino, Assistant Deputy Minister Talal Dakalbab (Crime Prevention), Fred Gaspar (CBSA), RCMP Deputy Commissioner Bryan Larkin, RCMP Director General Kelly Paquette (CFP) and Deputy Minister Rob Stewart on October 4th, 2022 regarding proposed legislation Bill C-21.





 

Trial date set in Federal Court for​

CCFR et al vs Canada will be heard over 8 days, from April 11-20, 2023 in the federal court in Ottawa.
 
In watching the last video interview above, yes, AR15's are designed to kill. If they are good enough for the government to use, for that purpose, then please explain why I can't use one in the same manner to defend my home, my family, myself, my community?

Their arguments are asinine.
 
In watching the last video interview above, yes, AR15's are designed to kill. If they are good enough for the government to use, for that purpose, then please explain why I can't use one in the same manner to defend my home, my family, myself, my community?

Their arguments are asinine.
Yes they are designed to kill, agreed. And their comments are asinine

But for the liberals and their antigun cheerleaders to sit their and say there is no " other purpose" for them in Canada or anywhere is ridiculous, especially in Canada where every firearm is "prohibited"(no ownership) unless you have a firearm license.

And every firearm that enters Canada is vetted by RCMP/GOV and classified for the only "other purposes" these firearms are allowed into the country for in the first place, "Hunting and Sporting".

Even though we do have the right to use a firearm in self defense most Canadians don't know that.
Legal Precedent Gives Us the Right to Have Guns


Section 34 of the Criminal Code provides for the narrow use of a firearm in justifiable self-defence licensed gun owners are strictly regulated, not responsible for violent gun crime and feed billions into the Canadian economy.

Legal Precedent

The Firearms Act provisions anyone who meets the criteria and conditions to obtain a firearms license, “Non-restricted” and “Restricted,” and purchases firearms for recreational use, including hunting.

This is a legal precedent.

Firearms Have Evolved

For many years firearms have been designed and manufactured to meet the competitive and functional needs of those sports and hunting in efficiency, accuracy in functional use in the sporting context – not killing people.

Firearms have evolved as sporting equipment, irrespective of where they started off from.

Again, precedence.

‘Right of Way’

The Canadian government provisioned and set precedence for gun owners by the very Act & regulations that were attacked and bastardized to capitalize on emotional reaction and vulnerability.

This provision is also precedent; gun owners have had a legal “right of way” by our permitted use for decades. Now, it is presumed that this can vaporize with keystrokes.


Old Case Law

In Canada, the concept of a firearm as an implement of death was set out in case law in R. v. Cairns (1962), where the court referred to the firearm in question as “a deadly weapon.”

This was repeated in R. v. Formosa (1993), and in R. v. Felawka (1993):

A firearm is expressly designed to kill or wound. … A firearm is quite different from an object such as a carving knife or an ice pick which will normally be used for legitimate purposes.

Archaic and Flawed

Archaic, flawed perceptions specific to the times, these notions piggybacked on early legal case law and do not account for the evolution of firearms for sport and hunting.

This evolution has been formed by the technological advances in its sport context, noting IDPA, IPSC, target shooting and others use of various rifles, handguns and shotguns.

While doctors and others may be against firearms, citing the devastating injuries – massive organ damage and blood loss only comparable to car accidents and stabbings – law abiding gun owners and the modern firearms they use are not the problem.

This Is the Legal Argument

Gun manufacturers do not design firearms for the military – for killing – they design them for sport shooters by provision of Canadian government legislation that has been in place for decades.

This is the legal argument.

The government created this precedent for sport shooters.

Do not let them take it from you.



They just know what this db tells them


The Right to Bears Arms (Canada)
 
How much longer is he gonna be in office?

I thought his time was already up?

And if no one has a right to self defense in Canada, I would really believe he should lead by example.
 
How much longer is he gonna be in office?

I thought his time was already up?

And if no one has a right to self defense in Canada, I would really believe he should lead by example.
The last election 2019 during CV19 he barely got the vote and wasted $600 million for the same result a "minority government" so towards the end of last year Trudeau convinced Jagmeet Singh
3500.jpg

to form a "coalition government" (nobody voted for this) in a "back room" to form a "majority government" giving Trudeau the power to call the shots for promises to help Jagmeets NDP party over the next 3 years. Both socialist liberal trash, hopefully an election is called before 2025 and we can get rid of this disease on society.
 
Right to Bear Arms (Canada)





Canadians regularly hear some media pundit or columnist informing them that no right to keep and bear arms exists in Canada, and those who refer to such a right have been watching too

much American television. Similar opinions are often voiced by some politicians - such as Allan Rock, former Justice Minister of Canada, who apparently was not paying attention during his

Constitutional Law classes while at university. Regrettably, it appears to be more a case of an uninformed and ignorant media and select public figures than an accurate observation regarding the right to keep and bear arms in Canada.


The right to keep and bear arms is an inherent right that stems from the English Bill of Rights - not from the U.S. Bill of Rights ratified over a hundred years later and whose Framers

merely included an existing right they had held at the time they were still English subjects. The discussion of whether this and other rights such as the right to freedom of religion exist because

of an act of government (which can by inference also remove them) or because certain rights are inherently the property of every human being simply through the fact, we exist is another

discussion that will not be addressed here. This paper simply addresses the origin of the right to keep and bear arms - a right recognized by government at the same time and in the same document that other rights held by Canadians were recognized which exist today without question or attack as the right to keep and bear arms

does. It also details how that right came to exist in Canada.
 
Last edited:

The Sun's political columnist Brian Lilley says the Trudeau government would rather spend money on gun buyback programs than protect the border from gun smugglers.
 
Right to Bear Arms (Canada)


Canadians regularly hear some media pundit or columnist informing them that no right to keep and bear arms exists in Canada, and those who refer to such a right have been watching too

much American television. Similar opinions are often voiced by some politicians - such as Allan Rock, former Justice Minister of Canada, who apparently was not paying attention during his

Constitutional Law classes while at university. Regrettably, it appears to be more a case of an uninformed and ignorant media and select public figures than an accurate observation regarding the right to keep and bear arms in Canada.





The right to keep and bear arms is an inherent right that stems from the English Bill of Rights - not from the U.S. Bill of Rights ratified over a hundred years later and whose Framers

merely included an existing right they had held at the time they were still English subjects. The discussion of whether this and other rights such as the right to freedom of religion exist because

of an act of government (which can by inference also remove them) or because certain rights are inherently the property of every human being simply through the fact, we exist is another

discussion that will not be addressed here. This paper simply addresses the origin of the right to keep and bear arms - a right recognized by government at the same time and in the same document that other rights held by Canadians were recognized which exist today without question or attack as the right to keep and bear arms

does. It also details how that right came to exist in Canada.
It is nothing less than wilful ignorance and the SCOC has admitted as much and consistently renders decisions against such rights. Every time I hear some internet harpie all up in someone's face about there being no right to bear arms in Canada I just shake my head. They have not read for themselves and have accepted someone else's opinion about whether they have the right to arm and defend their own person, family and property. They have happily agreed to be victimized. This has nothing to do with being a good neighbour or a passive or non-violent person. We can choose to live that way and most of us do, except when aggressed upon.

I'm no scholar, but from my layman's reading of the pertinent sections of the original BNA Act on which our constitution has always been founded to this day, despite what some people have erroneously tried to foist on the public. It is enshrined in British Common Law, that NO LAW can supercede a person's right to arm and defend themselves. This is my paraphrase of course but I can find the appropriate section with enough digging. Most places founded on British Common Law now including the UK itself no longer recognize these sections and have chosen to ignore them in favour of "public safety".
 
Just because some lawyer or judge (or group of them) decides against what a clearly worded document enshrines as certain inalienable rights, doesn't mean they are correct. I"m confident I can find (and have found in the past) equal if not more compelling legal arguments in favour of said rights. It's because someone with more power and influence gets on the bandwagon that these evil interpretations survive and even thrive. And they are evil...what else do you call something that takes away a person's right to life and safety? Good????
 


In 2020 minister Bill Blair told Canadian's they would not be using RCMP resources for their gun confiscation program. In 2022 minister Marco Mendicino says otherwise
 
I thought I tremendously disliked the Right Honourable Billy (can I have another drink) Blair until this new, even bigger lying @$$hole took over! I didn't think it could get any worse than Blair and then there they go proving me wrong again!! I guess Billy couldn't lie with a straight enough face for them and they needed someone to appear a little more butthurt by the questions being fired by the big, bad conservatives.
 
Back
Top