Oh, Canada

Today is Canada Day. It marks the uniting of the British colonies of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick with the Province of Canada (which included both Ontario and Quebec) into the Dominion of Canada on July 1, 1867 by way of the British North America Act of 1867. It is Canada’s national holiday.

So on this Canadian holiday I thought it appropriate to look again at the seizure of resident’s firearms in the Province of Alberta.

The RCMP announced on Sunday that they would start returning some of the firearms seized from residents of the town of High River.

An RCMP news release says that owners of guns that were seized should call police, and that an officer will call them back to make arrangements to have the weapons picked up.

The Mounties said earlier that they took the guns as officers searched homes in High River’s flood zone to look for flood victims, pets and anything that might pose a threat to returning residents.

Any guns were removed from homes because they were not properly stored, said Staff Sgt. Brian Jones, who added that no charges are planned.

“There is no indication of that at this point in time. That wasn’t the reason. That wasn’t the intention,” Jones said about the gun seizures.

The Prime Minister’s Office has now gotten involved in this affair. Prime Minister Stephen Harper is a resident of Alberta. His Canadian Parliament riding of Calgary Southwest adjoins the riding in which High River is located.

The move to take the weapons was condemned by the Prime Minister’s Office, who said the Mounties should focus on more important tasks such as protecting lives and private property.

Harper’s criticism of the RCMP’s move brought criticism itself.

Darryl Davies, a Carleton University criminology professor, considered the condemnation from the Prime Minister’s Office to be highly inappropriate.

“It’s completely and utterly inappropriate for the PMO to issue operational instructions to the RCMP,” Davies said Sunday.

Have we arrived at a point in Canada where the PMO can interfere in criminal investigations as well?”

Davies said he thought it must be embarrassing for the RCMP to be admonished by the PMO in the media, and that it undermines the force’s credibility and impartiality.

Davies, who has long criticized the RCMP himself, is also a strong proponent of gun control. He is on record as favoring the banning of all semi-automatic firearms. Davies also served as the Senior Communications Officer on Firearms, Communications Branch Department of Justice. Thus, I think Davies’ criticism in context is more about his anti-gun beliefs than anything to do with political interference with the RCMP.

Unlike the United States where the Constitution is a single document with a number of amendments, the Canadian Constitution is an amalgamation of Acts of Parliament from both Great Britain and Canada. In 1982, Canada passed the Constitution Act, 1982, which contained the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It can be said that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is their equivalent to our Bill of Rights – with exceptions. While it speaks of things like freedom of association and “the right to life, liberty, and the security of the person”, the one thing it does not guarantee is a right to keep and bear arms. Moreover, property rights are not mentioned. Much of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms concerns itself with language rights, the rights of “aboriginal people”, and the education rights of linguistic minorities.

So while we often think of our neighbors to the North as just like us but more polite, legally they have a much different system in which things like property rights and the right to keep and bear arms are treated much differently. That said, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservative government probably respect both of rights more so than the current Obama administration.

CalGuns Sues The “Best-Looking Attorney General”

The CalGuns Foundation on behalf of itself and seven individual Californians is suing California Attorney General Kamala Harris over delays in the processing of firearms background checks. California has a statutory 10-day waiting period. However, the California Department of Justice has been instructing dealers in some cases to delay the release of firearms to their eligible purchasers.

From the CalGuns release:



The Calguns Foundation and 7 Californians Sue Attorney General Kamala Harris, DOJ Over Gun Delays

SAN CARLOS, CA – The Calguns Foundation has filed a lawsuit on behalf of seven California residents today against Attorney General Kamala Harris, the California Department of Justice, and DOJ Bureau of Firearms Chief Stephen Lindley. The case challenges the DOJ’s policy of requiring some firearm purchasers to prove their legal standing to take possession of acquired firearms and forcing them to wait beyond the statutory 10-day waiting period.

One plaintiff in the case, Daniel Schoepf of Long Beach, California, was denied his fundamental right to keep and bear arms for self-defense even after DOJ told him that he was legally eligible to purchase and possess firearms.

In 1984, Schoepf was detained in Los Angeles County for having two tablets in his pocket that were later discovered to be common, non-prescription pills. The detectives subsequently released Schoepf and no charges were filed. In 2006, DOJ firearms section Program Manager Steve Buford sent Schoepf a letter stating that he was eligible to purchase and possess firearms; however, in 2012, DOJ reversed that position and instructed Schoepf’s local firearms dealer to hold back delivery of Schoepf’s gun.

“I know I’m not alone in this, that DOJ is wrongly denying many Californians their Second Amendment rights just like they are mine,” said Schoepf. “I’m not a criminal and certainly not a disqualified convict but am a law abiding citizen with my Second Amendment rights fully intact. They left me no choice but to fight this injustice in court.”

“Over the past year, the DOJ has been directing California gun dealers to delay the release of firearms to people eligible to possess them – sometimes indefinitely,“ said Jason Davis, attorney for The Calguns Foundation. “The DOJ simply has no legal authority to justify their policy.”

The DOJ claims that these delays are primarily due to lack of information in their criminal history databases. In a July 2011 Los Angeles Times article, assistant attorney general Travis LeBlanc said the DOJ’s criminal records database system was “shoddy,” with the ‘guilty’, ‘not guilty’, or ‘case dismissed’ disposition information missing for about 7.7 million of the 16.4 million arrest records entered into the database over the last decade – and presumably much more for older cases.

“In essence, the DOJ is relying upon their improperly-maintained database to deny the fundamental rights of individuals,” said Gene Hoffman, Chairman of The Calguns Foundation. “That policy is entirely unacceptable and we look forward to putting an end to it.”

The attorney for plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Victor Otten, agrees.

“Our clients follow the law and so should the DOJ,” said Otten. “The DOJ is gleefully enforcing a policy that deprives my clients of their civil rights. The arrogance of the Department to think that it can abrogate the Constitution and statutory duties set by the Legislature is very unsettling.”

“This case really underscores the value of our DOJ Watch program,” said Brandon Combs, Executive Director of The Calguns Foundation. “Attorney General Harris’s hostility towards some civil rights predictably resulted in a shift away from former Attorney General Brown’s correct application of the law – and we are here to hold her accountable.”

The lawsuit is entitled Schoepf, et. al. vs. Kamala Harris, et. al. A copy of the complaint may be viewed or downloaded at http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/cgf_dros-delay-complaint.pdf.

The description of California AG Kamala Harris in the title comes from President Obama’s inappropriate remarks made recently.

Cartoon Puts It In Perspective

A cartoon that ran yesterday in the Denver Post’s The Spot blog really puts things in perspective about the political culture in Colorado.

Colorado voters approved private use of marijuana in the past election. This measure was opposed by Gov. John Hickenlooper. Now it appears Hickenlooper will support and sign HB 1224 which would result in magazine maker Mapgul to move out of state. Frankly, I think Hickenlooper has his priorities backwards.

Pastor Kenn On NPR’s Tell Me More

Pastor Kenn Blanchard, author, podcaster, media mogul, and all around nice guy, was interviewed by Michel Martin for National Public Radio’s Tell Me More program. This program’s goal is to:

Capturing the headlines, issues and pleasures relevant to multicultural
life in America, the daily one-hour series is hosted by award-winning
journalist Michel Martin. Tell Me More
marks Martin’s first role in hosting a daily program. She views it as
an opportunity to focus on the stories, experiences, ideas and people
important in contemporary life but often not heard.

Kenn gave a great interview in which he discussed his history with firearms, the role that firearms have played within the African-American community, his interest in the history of firearms in that community, and, to be frank, the uneasy relationship he has with his congregation over his views on firearms and firearm rights.

I’ve said it before and I will say it again – we are very fortunate to have someone like Pastor Kenn on our side of the gun rights issue. An articulate spokesman of whatever color or race is always an asset.

Remington Takes A Stand

Remington has set up a new website that allows people to send a prepared email regarding gun control efforts to elected officials at the national and state level. The website called “Take A Stand Now” also has a way to send a selection of prepared Tweets to your senators and congressman.

This brings to four the number of firearms and ammo manufacturers who have provided an easy way to send a pro-gun rights message to the White House, Congress, and the State Houses.

I used it to send out the pre-written message on Saturday morning. I received a personal email from State Senator Jim Davis (R-Macon) by that afternoon. My point is that the message does get through.

Huge Turnout Wednesday In Maryland For Gun Rights

When the Washington Post runs a story that says “Gun rights advocates marshaled one of the biggest crowds to descend on Annapolis for a bill hearing in years”, you know it was a big turnout. In other words, it was too big a crowd for even the anti-rights mainstream media to minimize.

While the question remains whether the Democrat-dominated legislature will listen to gun rights supporters or to Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) who is trying to vie with Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) of New York on gun control, the report from Maryland Shall Issue (see below) on the event gives some measure of hope on the issue.

Yesterday Maryland Shall Issue, in concert with the NRA, the Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, staged the largest “Gun Day” rally in the history of our state – official state estimates count 4,000 pro-rights supporters who converged at our statehouse for a morning rally and afternoon hearings in the Senate.

We literally shut the place down. Soon after the hearing, I got a call from the MD Capital Police. They told us the building was already at maximum capacity and that fire code meant no more entrants.

This was more than a rally. Our people all showed up to attend the hearing and to testify. Even after locking out our many members, there would be more than 1,000 people in line to testify. Just getting your name on the list of witnesses took six hours. Every person stood in line, eager to get their voices heard. Unfortunately, the chairman of the committee – Senator Brian Frosh – is a the largest Gun Control Advocate in the state. He decided to unilaterally cut off testimony after 4 hours from each side. Even when reduced, the Gun Controllers ran out witnesses. They had them on the list to testify, but after 5 PM many were no where to be found. They were mostly government employees – it looks like their interest in Gun Control ended when the paychecks ran out. The Chairman eventually reduced “testimony” to nothing more than your name and town. That’s it. That was was his idea of how to let people petition their government. Our side went until they literally told us to leave. The last name was spoken at almost 10 PM.

We had an effect. Publicly many admit that licensing is dead; that registration is about to fail; and privately there is talk that even the AWB is at risk. They are splitting the Governor’s bill into smaller bills, because as of today they big one would not pass either chamber.

We are not guaranteed a final win on everything. But this was supposed to be a cake walk for them, and the people of this state are going to make them work for it.

Maryland Shall Issue has been asked what we would compromise – whether we could “throw them a bone.” We told them that we would not compromise a single right. They told us that means we could lose. Our membership is united: we would rather have all of our rights stolen from us, than to willingly give up even one.

Everyone keep us in their prayers. We are holding our line in this fight. Pray we hold it until the end.

Perhaps this testimony from Maryland-based gun maker Beretta as reported by the Washington Post might have some influence as well.

Jeffrey Reh, general counsel for firearm manufacturer Beretta, which has a plant in Accokeek, warned lawmakers that O’Malley’s bill, which outlaws 45 types of weapons and their knockoffs, could have a severe impact on the company’s business. He also said that because gun manufacturers in Maryland are required to register as firearm dealers, it’s unclear whether the company would still be allowed to export guns for sale in other states.

“We’re confronted with a state government that wants to ban the products we make,” Reh said. “Not surprisingly, we are concerned.”

OK, We’ve Seen The Picture

So the White House has now released an actual photo of President Obama firing a shotgun that isn’t photoshopped. Big deal!

I prefer the one below that Scott posted on Facebook.

I doubt the release of the photo will assure any of us that Obama really cares about gun rights, the Second Amendment, or anything else related to us bitter clingers. I think the cartoon below by Hope n’ Change captures that doubt.

A Survivor Of Tianamen Square On Gun Rights

“June 4th” was a young Chinese student and democracy activist who was part of the Tiananmen Square protest. That protest was crushed by the People’s Liberation Army under the direction of the Chinese Communist Party. On Saturday, “June 4th”, who is now a naturalized US citizen and a firearms owner, participated in the rally for gun rights on Saturday at the Massachusetts State Capitol.

“June 4th” refers to the day that the People’s Liberation Army fired upon the students and activists in Tiananmen Square killing many hundreds of them.

The full transcript of the speech can be found here at Blog O’Stuff.

The transcripts of the other speeches can be found on the Northeast Shooter’s Forum here.

The part of “June 4th”‘s speech that really stuck with me was this:

Do you know that the Chinese Constitution guarantees almost all the nice
things we have here? It is written that Chinese citizens enjoy freedom
of speech and religion, they have human and property rights, and that
such rights cannot be taken away without due process of the law. And do
you know what? Chinese people do not have the right to keep and bear
arms. I assure you all those nice guarantees, are not worth the paper
they are printed on, because when the government has all the guns, they
have all the rights.

<

I was not born a citizen of the United States, I was naturalized in
2007. In 2008, I became a proud gun owner. To me, a rifle is not for
sporting or hunting, it is an instrument of freedom. It guarantees that I
cannot be coerced, that I have free will, and that I am a free man.

Now suppose the 20 million Beijing citizens had had a few million
rifles, how many rounds should they have been ALLOWED to load into their
magazines? 10? 7? How about 3?

Think about it. 

The Ground War

The fight to preserve our gun rights in the face of the attacks that have been launched by the Obama Administration will come down to who has the better ground war – us or them.

On Monday, Vice-President Joe Biden met with a group of House Democrats regarding the proposals that would be put forth to advance gun control. In addition to laying out the proposals he was going to present to President Obama, he discussed the campaign to get them enacted by Congress.


But Biden did indicate that the remains of the Obama campaign apparatus may be activated in the effort.

“He said that this has been a real focus on the policy and that the politics of this issue, that a strategy on the politics of the issue hasn’t been undertaken yet,” Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) told POLITICO. “He did remind us that the campaign infrastructure is still accessible.”

Not only is that campaign infrastructure still in place but Obama for America is still actively raising money even though Barack Obama is Constitutionally limited to two terms.

In an article in The Atlantic today, Ron Fournier discussed how Obama and his advisers plan to use his personal political organization, Obama for America, to fight for everything from gun control to higher taxes.


Former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, a confidant of the president, signaled the high-testosterone approach shortly before Obama’s announcement on guns, telling MSNBC, “The president has the most exciting campaign apparatus ever built. It’s time to turn that loose.”

He speculated that the National Rifle Association is lobbying lawmakers with the names and numbers of new NRA members in each congressional district, gun-rights supporters galvanized by the Newtown elementary school massacre. “If the NRA has a list,” Gibbs said, “then Obama for America has a bigger list.”

OFA is the president’s personal political operation, affiliated with the Democratic National Committee. One of the great failings of Obama’s first term was his inability to mobilize his election coalition to advance his policy goals from the White House.

He’s going to try again.

Gibbs is probably right that Obama for America has a bigger list than all the gun rights organizations put together.

However, the people who have supported Obama in the past have a multitude of interests and causes ranging from economic issues to gay rights and everything in between. By contrast, gun rights supporters regardless of whether they belong to the NRA, GOA, CCRKBA, SAF, or any of a number of state-level organizations are focused on one thing – gun rights.

The Pew Research Center for People and the Press released the results of their most recent poll concerning gun control on Monday. According to this poll, a majority of Americans favor more background checks and a new assault weapon ban. A near majority favor restrictions on magazines. In and of itself, this is not good news. Overall, a bare majority (51% vs. 45%)  think it is more important to control guns compared to preserving gun rights.

Fortunately, the Pew Research Center did not limit their research to just who favored what ban and in what numbers. They also studied how committed and how active supporters on each side of the gun control debate were. The results were interesting.


There is a wide gap between those who prioritize gun rights and gun control when it comes to political involvement. Nearly a quarter (23%) of those who say gun rights should be the priority have contributed money to an organization that takes a position on gun policy, compared with just 5% of those who prioritize gun control. People who favor gun rights are also about twice as likely as gun control supporters to have contacted a public official about gun policy (15% vs. 8%).

While the numbers expressing an opinion on social media or signing a petition are roughly equal with a slight edge to those favoring gun rights, petitions and posts on Facebook don’t get the attention of those in Congress nearly as much as money and calls from constituents.

Make no mistake that we are in a war but it is a ground war that we can win. Those on the side of the Second Amendment put our money where our mouth is and back it up with calls and letters to politicians.

If you haven’t called your Congressman or Senators yet, do it tomorrow. If you don’t like talking on the phone, send them a fax. Indeed fax it to both their local offices and their Washington office. If you don’t have time to do either of those two, at least go to the Ruger website and use their tool to make your views known. Since it went live on Saturday, almost 450,000 people have taken advantage of that tool which sends a simple letter to your congressman, both senators, governor, lt. governor, and state representatives.

And continue contacting them each and every week for the next few months!