May 21, 2016

Standing up for gun owners: How media turned a “paper criminal” into a “dangerous” man

Holly NicholasRebel Commentator

I told you about Bruce and Donna Montague who let their gun licenses expire in an act of civil disobedience to challenge changes to the Criminal Code from Bill C-68 and now I want to show how media reports led to misconceptions about them.

Bill C-68 required mandatory registration of non-restricted firearms which they felt infringed on their rights. Donna was convicted on one charge and Bruce, a well respected gunsmith, was charged and convicted with 26 paper crimes spending six months in jail followed by probation, had his guns taken and got a lifetime prohibition from firearms. Paying his debt to society with jail time, losing his career and life savings wasn’t enough though. Now the Ontario government is after his home using civil forfeiture laws that allow them to take property based on criminal intent. But Bruce and Donna never did commit crimes with a criminal purpose - theirs was an act of civil disobedience and a peaceful protest.

Misconceptions about the case were mainly due to mainstream media reports. Showing poor judgement, Bruce filed serial numbers off firearms in order to hide them because the Crown ordered the forfeiture of his guns worth over $100,000 dollars but later, feeling guilty, he advised police of their whereabouts showing he had no criminal purpose. He also had some automatic firearms and explosives on his property which sounds suspicious but he was licensed to have both as Derek From of the Canadian Constitution Foundation explains.

He had some military books, survival guides and manuals on how to convert rifles to automatic fire, one of the reasons the police labelled him a “dangerous” man, but Bruce was a licensed gunsmith so insinuating that a person is dangerous for possessing literature related to their profession is absurd. Even the Crown referred to Bruce as a “valuable member of his community.” Some of the accusations in the sentencing report sounded more like the Crown bolstering up charges to make an example out of Bruce.

Lorne Gunter put it best when he said gun owners are treated like second class citizens. Bruce and Donna Montague are no more than paper criminals. They challenged the government and an example is being made of them.

They lost their life savings, Bruce lost his, career, guns and gun license and now, they stand to lose their home.

In this case, the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2016-05-24 10:20:11 -0400
Great posts guys. I do feel a bit inferior when Bill Elder gets on a roll though, but my bruised ego won’t stop me from reading. Keep posting guys, the more info the better.

Once again guess who will come out on top. The common CRIMINAL. The leftist morons have succeeded over the years to ensure that the victims become the criminals, the legal (not justice) system seems to favor the actual criminals on many occasions, and what is left of gun rights for Canadian citizens is under constant erosion from the left and MSM.

I hope there is one dependable gun left in the hands of a true Canadian patriot. And I hope said individual has 4 shiny bullets left for that gun. We all know the BIG three that should receive a lead pill,but long overdue for one between the eyes is non other than the slime ball of Cretien era fame, Allan the douche bag Rock.

DJBT and STPC and NN and
commented 2016-05-24 09:08:19 -0400
Thanks for that BILL ELDER. And, as for how the CPC is going to handle this, we already have our answer. Let’s look at S. 319 of the Criminal Code – Public Incitement of Hatred.

As it stands, “hatred” is not defined. In other words – as Bill Elder pointed out – “politically appointed agents of cultural deconstructionism in police and the judiciary can fill in the blank definitions …”

The other issue with section is the phrase “where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace…” Likely? What the hell is “likely to lead”?

Here’s my point. The CPC had its chance to deal with this and a host of other dangerous imprecisions in federal legislation. It decided to leave things as they were. And on another related note, the CPC championed the necessity of property rights during the 2006 election campaign…and once elected, they ducked, dodged, and weaved from the issue every time it was brought up. The CPC has little more concern for civil liberties than the Liberals, NDP, or Greens.

So, even though single-issue guys like old pot-heads and concealed-carry nuts are a bit over-represented in the ranks of our Libertarian parties, that’s where I’ll be marking my X next time round. They are the only parties that recognize that the steady erosion of civil liberties can only have but one conclusion: totalitarianism.
commented 2016-05-24 02:52:20 -0400
Bill Elder – as usual a very meaningful and enlightening comment with lots of social, political and legal implications. I did have to read it twice to let some or most of it sink into my melon, even for a short period of time.
commented 2016-05-23 14:42:10 -0400
For those who are just now (decades after the fact) are beginning to realize that supra-constitutional misapplication of criminal law is creating criminals out of non criminal peaceful individuals (such as Bruce and his family and all firearms owners) – turn your attention to the newly introduced bill on amending the federal HR act and the criminal code to accommodate trans-people. This is another example of making bad(unjust) law by criminalizing petty infraction (rudeness) and codifying open interpretations of culpability.

Just as the current civilian firearms law is a danger to bona fides justice because it mixes criminal liability with petty non-criminal infraction regulative law with vague definitions open to ad hoc police interpretation, the proposed transgender equity/protection laws put nebulous terms such as "Homophobia, Transphobia, Biphobia, gender identity and gender expression " in the criminal code and attach criminal penalties to culpability yet to be defined as related to the previous nebulous poorly defined crimes.

If we take these “crimes” describe as Homophobia, Transphobia, Biphobia, we must understand that a definition in law must have absolute clarity so it can be uniformly understood to avoid indicting inadvertent law-breaking devoid of true criminal intent intent. “Phobia” in medical and law terminology is a neurotic irrational fear – are they criminalizing “fear”? What is Their definition of an honestly held “fear” which can possibly be judged as criminal with malevolent intent that leaves tangible damage/victims? Likewise, what is “gender expression”? What is “gender identity”? Is it physical or mental? If a mental state, how can one know what another identifies with without breaking the “phobia” law and asking?

Well, the short answer is we just don’t know – and like so much other virtue-posturing progressive extremist legislating, it is intentionally left devoid of absolute definitions of these (social/mental?) crimes on purpose – so the politically appointed agents of cultural deconstructionism in police and the judiciary can fill in the blank definitions as they go and as they require to accomplish the intent of the law – which is not to stop any critical problem of routine criminal attacks on the group cited in the legislation, but to allow the state to silence critics of extremist ideologies or official moral ambiguity and make examples of dissidents to the new rule of law which rejects constitutional restrictions and moral absolutes.

These laws, historically always lead to “re-education” incarcerations (AKA coercive mandatory sensitivity training) in a gulag state – and ultimately mass graves. The culture war is going hot folks and when you see political prisoners like Bruce Montague or the many criminally non culpable people economically destroyed by HRC administrative tyranny, the time for a grassroots show of principled mass dissent is here. Changing the faces on the opposition side of the house every 4 years is no longer a safeguard against aggressive extremism which will subvert western cultural and legal values.

Watch how your CPC reps handle this one in its readings, it will be a litmus test as to weather the CPC still values legitimate-rule of law or has been cooped into the post-nationalist war on traditional western law and culture. The enemy is within the gates.

That’s my rant on this patriotic holiday – who will stand on guard for thee when all our native sons have been sent to re-education camps for paperwork and “identity” crimes?
commented 2016-05-23 12:31:43 -0400
I think that in order to vote, you should have to answer a few skill-testing questions first.

68 X 100 = ?
What is the fourth furthest planet from the Sun = ?
What is the job title of the individual who represents the queen in Canada = ?
List all of Canada’ s provinces and territories = ?

If you can’t state the answers to those questions, you don’t deserve to vote. Change them every year, different at each polling station. That would eliminate the votes of a ton of third-world riff-raff and dumb union trash who vote Gimmie More Debt each time around.
commented 2016-05-23 12:25:10 -0400
Still haven’t seen a single article or mention here of Peter Khill’s ordeal here. Perhaps had the events occurred in Toronto or Alberta then The Rebel might cover it.
commented 2016-05-23 09:35:20 -0400
Does police state mean anything to anyone!
commented 2016-05-22 15:43:21 -0400
I think what you said in your post is so profoundly important I’m sharing it on my FB page…
I’ll give you a great essay in return:

“Self Defence: A Pro-Gun Strategy” By John Orth
Canadian gun owners are slowly digging our own graves with our timid, apologetic approach to gun rights. Most Canadian gun owners, and most Canadian pro-gun organizations, have utilized a sporting purposes only argument in support of civilian gun ownership. Self defence has become a taboo topic. This reticence is a huge blunder. By failing to actively promote handgun ownership for self defence, we leave ourselves tongue-tied at the most critical juncture in the gun control debate: the aftermath of a mass murder…"—%20A%20Pro-Gun%20Strategy.html
commented 2016-05-22 13:19:22 -0400
Holly (and all others who have the same dilemma about the disproportionate criminal punishments of paperwork infractions in the firearms act).

I was very tuned into the arguments put before the justice committee charged with reviewing C-68. One of the reoccurring objections from a number of professional organizations submitting evidence, was that much of this gun law was in the realm of regulating legal ownership of private personal property and lawful commerce and was “regulatory” and minor “misdemeanor” in nature and did not belong in the criminal code with true criminal misuse of a firearm. Reason being, regulatory law allows no defense. Criminal law (because penalties are so dire) allows for defense and the crown must prove both criminal breech and intent beyond reasonable doubt. Regulatory law only requires the crown to show the regulation was violated regardless of motive, intent, due diligence or mitigating circumstances which form a defense to a criminal charge. That is why regulatory law is provincial jurisdiction and usually carries a fine. C-68 mutated regulatory no defense petty infraction law with criminal punishments – just plain bad law from both a justice and constitutional perspective.

Lawful, peaceful gun owners engaged in non criminal use/possession of firearms have been victims of this misapplication of criminal law for over a decade. The abuses are routine and plentiful and include abusive enforcement, reprehensible overreaction, malicious prosecution and inappropriate punishments. This goes on because the constitutional remedy for applying criminal punishments for non-criminal minor regulator infractions has eluded oppressed firearms owners due to the prohibitive cost of seeking justice through a constitutional defense.

Bruce has shouldered this crushing burden of defending constitutional justice himself. If we lived in a civilized true liberal democracy, Bruce would be on the short list for the order of Canada.
commented 2016-05-22 13:01:32 -0400
Dollars to donuts says that the Liebranos, marxist police and Socialist Media will have no problem with the ’slamics being armed once Trudope gets enough of his jihadi army imported!
commented 2016-05-22 12:17:47 -0400
If you want to understand how the bureaucratic mind of the police state thinks you need to go no further than the evening TV news – who mindlessly regurgitate scripted press releases from police political officers and authoritarian politicians, then they add some negative spin to it with defamatory innuendo, which has the long term effect of demonizing/dehumanizing any political target of the regime.

privately own sporting arms and gun owners have been slandered for decades by a subverting media as a favor to their political masters. In effect they have created such a phobia in the public that the mere mention of the word ‘gun’ or ‘gun owner’ sends the gullible media conditioned sheep scattering for a safe place. They play a venal game of public indoctrinating at a primal level using fear and disinformation to create politically correct behavious in the masses.

“We really must brainwash people on guns. “We just have to be repetitive about this. It’s not enough to have a catchy ad on a Monday and then only do it every Monday. We have to do this every day of the week and just really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.” – Eric Holder US Attorney General

This is why spoons cause obesity, ladders cause burglaries, hypodermics create junkies, the internet creates kiddie porn, and guns make the owner kill people – at least they do in cynical scapegoating media/political circles.
commented 2016-05-22 09:39:26 -0400
The socialist main stream media is most of the problem with our society today. They have a disproportionately large influence on our society.

So when (not if) the MSM deliberately falsifies and/or misrepresents the truth to deliver their socialist agenda, they shape the minds of those too lazy to seek out the truth from other sources, which unfortunately is most of the Canadian population.

Whatever happened to keeping the journalistic principles that many of these journalists swore to uphold?

Canadian Association of Journalists


The main stream media, such as the CBC, CTV, Global, Toronto Star, etc, do not hold up to these principles.
commented 2016-05-22 03:05:15 -0400
The moral of the story? Don’t do anything that will get you arrested.
commented 2016-05-22 00:06:27 -0400
Even in the Constitutional Republic of America with their Bill of Rights and the rock-solid 2nd Amendment, which “Shall Not Be Infringed” – that the treasonous criminals and socialist totalitarians have been trying to go through for decades and dismantle…unsuccessfully, are finding ways around it…I predict when Hillary steals the White House in November, she’ll take a page from Obama’s book and with the help of the Media Party, just ‘executive-order’ the 2nd Amendment gone!
If that can happen in the US, what do you think the UN’s jihadi love-child Justin, is going to try to get away with here in Canada, especially after his daddy, Pinko Pierre has ‘fixed’ our constitution so effectively?
commented 2016-05-21 22:18:11 -0400
I support them for the ideology of sticking up for what you believe in. However you do not as a citizen of Canada have to break the law to take a law that’s unjust or unfair or bad to court over. There is an actual formate to fight the law without breaking the law first. So I support him for sticking up for his beliefs but I don’t for the way he did it. Life is hard. Harder if your stupid. -John Wayne.
commented 2016-05-21 15:16:31 -0400
Oh, but the punishment does indeed fit the crime.

That punishment is being directed from on up high.

It is being done to destroy the firearms ownership community.

This punishment will continue to come from on high.

From the politicians right to the POS called the PM who is in fact a POS.

From the heads of the police – from coast to coast.

From the left groups – including organizations like Tide.

And in fact from the Law Society of Canada itself.

The anti gunners and the lack of justice come from our legal system – which is not a justice system.

And even the human rights kangaroo courts which would seldom if ever stand with the owner of a firearm.

If even one of the above would step up to the plate, then I might change my mind – however they are all conspiring to take the firearms community down.

And leading the charge?

The mainstream media – if you ever get to kick one of them in the teeth – please add another for me.

If you dress like and islamic you will get away with it no problem at all.

Never doubt that.