October 23, 2015

Gun registry? This expert says what Liberals have in mind is MUCH worse

Brian LilleyArchive

Gun control didn't come up much during the campaign but issues affecting legal gun owners are sure to come up soon.

I sat down with Tony Bernardo, Executive Director of the Canadian Shooting Sports Association, to discuss what legal gun owners can expect in the coming years.

Listen to the interview to find out why he says people are joining the Association in droves. You can go to www.cssa-cila.org for more information.


The High River gun grab violated every Canadian's civil liberties, and must never be repeated.
SIGN OUR PETITION at HandsOffOurGuns.ca

JOIN TheRebel.media for more fearless news and commentary you won’t find anywhere else.

"Don't blame me: I voted Conservative"
The t-shirt that says it all -- ONLY from TheRebel.media store!

You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2015-11-01 18:33:58 -0500
RICHARD VANDERLUBBE commented “David, understand that disbelief in God (doesn’t have to be a man in the sky) leaves you to accept the fraud that your Rights came from government… And that they can be taken away by government”.

BS. Rights come from the people who fight, kill, and die for them. The same people who will have to keep doing so to keep them. What good are “god given rights” when “god” won’t prevent a government from infringing on those rights?
commented 2015-10-27 16:27:07 -0400
I see the same irrational emotional non factual arguments used here as being an intellectually lazy reactionary regurgitation of the same old discredited misinformation on the issue of gun control. I urge all to read this before going off “half cocked” on this issue which is primarily a matter of misapplication of criminal law.

First – I am not against gun controls in the same way I’m not against any law if it makes sense, is based in fact and has demonstrable impact in solving a proven problem which it has been created to cure – While at the same time respects sacrosanct legal rights. In this regard it must be repeated loudly that it is already illegal to murder, maim, assault, threaten, intimidate or show criminal carelessness with a weapon – any weapon from a baseball bat to a kitchen knife to dangerous substances like gasoline – has been for a long time and the consequences are as dire as our society can provide – how successful have these long-standing criminal laws been in stemming murder, assault etc.? This is as great a public protection as the law can provide – without imposition of a police state – and we saw that even in the soviet union police state organized crime based in murder, robbery, extortion ect, flourished. Government cannot ever provide total personal security from criminal activity.

That said, ALL gun control is not focused at capital crime prevention (we had these laws in place for centuries) but in creating a police regulatory regime which proposes to control 10s of millions of bits of metal and wood owned by millions of non criminal peaceful citizens using them in fully legal activities. A daunting task at best and one which redirects a tremendous amount of police resources to regulate NON-CRIMINAL activity and lawfully owned private property in a demographic of society which has a proven track record as the most trust worthy and law abiding in our society. (Gun owners can get$10M liability insurance for less than $10/yr.) It is a largely misdirected effort as it is a demonstrable fact lawful firearms owners are NOT a factor in criminal gun use activity.

Secondly, there has NEVER been any peer reviewed, factual, credible academic study which supports the claim that the type of gun control measures now implemented, and those planned, has had any impact on violent crime at all. None exists – at least pertaining to Canadian style police-run regulatory gun control.

Any other argument is simply misdirection, factual misrepresentation or paranoid fear mongering. Laws are based on necessity, factual analysis and demonstrable functionality. Canada’s gun control regime was instituted in a delirium of media/special interest political hysteria and the voices of reason and legal civility were drown out by emotive manipulators – we ended up with a costly feel-good billion dollar boondoggle which did nothing to control violent crime – primarily because it targeted the law-abiding and criminalized non criminal activities. It was Orwellian in that it claimed success by controlling criminal activity which was largely created through newly created paperwork compliance crimes.

I have heard dozens of legal scholars condemn it (Canadian firearms act) as bad legislating and redundant political posturing posing as criminal law or simply a misapplication of the criminal law making power – including Peter Hogg who is Canada’s premier authority on the constitution. Which begs the question why bureaucratic insider pressure groups keep prodding government/media to double down on a proven failure (gun registries and gun banning) when this only effects those undisposed to criminal activity – well certainly police command level politicians and anti-civil rights statists love the idea even if it is ineffective – they do so because it expands their authority and budgets and it does so by the old Hegelian dialectic of creating a false strawman then providing a radical solution to a non problem – fear mongering to unnecessarily expand arbitrary authority – scary at best in a nation governed by representative consensual law making not the arbitrary blunt force of police intimidation.


Gun control, in the sense the term is used politically today, is nothing more than a synesthetic metaphor for expansion of police state authority and the criminalization of non criminal acts. Whenever you hear the word “ban” or “gun control” bandied about by political opportunists, be assured that it is a placebo for their failures to protect the individual from criminal activity by misdirecting public fears at a strawman.

The first abuse of criminal law the Chretien government made in the gun control laws was to take the lawful Firearms access certification permit and turned it into a “licence to possess” – by doing so they outlawed possession of firearms – UNLESS you were in possession of their licence –a “licence” which black’s law dictionary describes as essentially, a specifically tailored defense, vended by authority, allowing the holder to break the law – which in this case is the non criminal peaceful possession of a lawfully obtained firearm.

This is bad law because it is regulatory law masquerading as criminal law – it criminalizes, without mens rea (guilty intent) and in the absence of due diligence (100% liability ) in reverse onus, (guilt until accused can prove otherwise) of a non criminal act. It is the modern equivalent of the federal licences the government issued for a woman to have an abortion when abortion as defacto outlawed. Very draconian misuse of the law.

In 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada considered the Morgentaler v. The Queen and the Attorney General of Canada case. It found that the government had provided a specifically-tailored defence to that particular [criminal] charge in the law. The Court also found that the DEFENCE WAS ILLUSORY, or so difficult to obtain as to be practically illusory. The Court ruled that when a court is asked to consider a case that exhibits that defect in the law, it must strike the defective law down.

Federal Firearms act CC s. 91 exhibits that defect, as do other sections with criminal liability for non criminal minor regulatory infractions

In 1991, the Supreme Court of Canada considered the Wholesale Travel case (1991 3 SCR 154) to settle the validity of strict liability offences. In the case of a ‘regulatory offence’ or a ‘public welfare offence’, including those that carry the penalty of imprisonment, fundamental justice does not require that mens rea be an element of the offence. Fundamental justice is satisfied if there is a defence of reasonable care, and the burden of proving reasonable care (to the civil standard) may be cast on the defendant. In the case of ‘true crimes’, however, fundamental justice requires that mens rea be an element of the offence, and the burden of proving mens rea (to the criminal standard) would have to would have to be on the Crown Proscutor.

Firearms act CC s. 91 is a law that does not deal with a regulatory offence. It deals with a ‘true crime,’ and therefore the government must prove mens rea. CC s. 91 is designed and written to permit the conviction and imprisonment of an accused without the Crown having to prove mens rea (intent), and such a law must therefore be struck down by any court that is asked to consider it.

A licence is defined in law as a document used in regulatory law to give permission for a person to engage in regulated activities that would otherwise be unlawful.

A licence apparently cannot be used in criminal law to give permission for a person to engage in criminal activity, because the government has no known power to licence individuals to commit crimes. In the light of the Morgentaler decision, the Supreme Court of Canada apparently does condone the issuance of a document that is “a specifically-tailored defence to a particular [criminal] charge” – but is not a licence to commit that crime.

If the government can licence an individual to commit the crime of possessing a firearm, there is no apparent reason why it cannot licence another individual to commit the crimes of rape, robbery and murder –and in retrospect it has done so in absolving special police details of any or all crimes they may commit while engaged on a case.

Current gun control law is premised on bad/errant law practice – regulatory law disguised as criminal law –and in being so entraps many honest non criminal citizens in a control regime which creates 100% criminal liability in the absence of intent or criminal action – but this fact has no impact on the purely emotional terms or partisan mendacity in which the gun control debate is framed in today. We will again suffer under constitutionally ambiguous bad laws propelled by irrational public fears stirred up for avaricious political gains.
commented 2015-10-27 04:46:39 -0400
Andrew if a criminal has a gun what would you use to defend yourself against it if not another gun?
commented 2015-10-27 04:45:44 -0400
Andrew PETs charter of criminal rights is not the only thing we have here in Canada in case you hadn’t noticed. Do you think we had no rights before that?
commented 2015-10-27 01:55:39 -0400
atokenconservative very well said, now of course the trolls will not answer, all i got was a deflection from Andrew.
commented 2015-10-27 01:52:54 -0400
Andrew nice deflection , would never call you that , i have a basis to call you a halfwit though.
commented 2015-10-26 23:59:11 -0400
“Andrew Stephenson then you would not care if we outlawed abortion, and sorry we have the right to defend ourselves halfwit. "

"Halfwits"*, might need to be directed to the particular subsection of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that gives you the right “to defend yourself”, particularly where the use of firearms for such is stated or implied.
  • I prefer more creativity in the epithets thrown at me. “Halfwit” is just uninspired when you could have called me a “festering month old dog puke transvestite communist rat bastard” or something of that nature.
commented 2015-10-26 22:09:04 -0400
Nathan, one more point. You address Marty, saying “The RCMP are the guys who actually have to face those guns. Let them decide what’s too dangerous.” If only that were true, Nathan. You see, that’s exactly the reason we shouldn’t have strict gun control. It isn’t always the RCMP who are facing the guns, sometimes (likely more often than the RCMP) those guns are used by criminals against civilians. In your perfect worker’s paradise, unarmed civilians. Unarmed civilians, waiting for the (armed) RCMP to show up and provide some defense against the (armed) bad guys. In a small town on the prairies, 45 minutes away from the nearest RCMP detatchment. That scenario does actually happen from time to time, in locations far away from Toronto or Montreal. This is why people who are from those small towns, or people who care about people who live in those small towns, and people who have the ability to see past the end of their noses, all agree that the type of restrictive gun control you hand wringing lefty control freaks are always going on about just doesn’t work out here. So, try to understand, it’s not for the RCMP’s benefit that we are against gun control, it’s for our own safety. Not everybody can count on a police response time of minutes, but your gun control scheme assumes everyone in Canada can. You’re wrong, plain and simple. So stop supporting legislation that puts my family and friends at risk, okay?
commented 2015-10-26 21:52:34 -0400
Nathan: you want me to name one. Too much work. Tell you what: you find an example of one that disproves my point, how about that? A panel, with no obvious Conservative or conservative on it, where one of the many, many lies the left spread around this election mostly unchallenged is put out there as a fact, and it was actually challenged on said panel as being factually incorrect. At least Maher admits that Liberals never saw a regulation they didn’t want to marry, but that’s the exception. Very few left wingers can admit they were ever wrong about anything. Now, you mention how the CBC reported extensively on the sponsorship scandal when it involved a Liberal. You’re joking, right? Brian did a story on SNN about how the CBC had 400 stories on Robocalls when it was a Conservative scandal, they had one story in the politics section of their website for a half hour when it turned out to be a Liberal story. Take a look at the CBC website now. I just searched Mac Harb, 1650 hits. Search Mike Duffy, 7970 hits. Just this minute. Harb spent more money inappropriately than everything from every Conservative senator combined, but Duffy’s “scandal” never actually cost the taxpayer one red cent, except, of course, the cost of the ongoing witch hunt. But somehow the CBC paints this as the biggest scandal to affect the Harper government, and the Liberals, somehow, aren’t involved.
You ask for one step the left has taken away from democracy. I’ve got a couple of good ones: how is it democratic to support union leadership when they don’t want to disclose their political expenditures? That sounds like the exact opposite of democratic to me. Then there’s Kelly Block’s bill to force FN chiefs to disclose their taxpayer funded salaries. Then there’s the push to disclose expenditures of more taxpayer’s funds by the CBC. These are all issues involving transparency, directly related to the concept of democracy, and all fought tooth and nail by the left. How about Trudeau’s restriction on candidates’ positions on things like abortion? Does that sound democratic to you? It doesn’t to me. Ask Jodie Emery how “democratic” the Liberal candidate selection process is. I could go on, but why bother? By this point you’ve surely got your hands over your ears and shouting “I can’t hear you!”. The point is that the left can not, under any circumstances, lay claim to being champions of democracy. Remember, communism is on the left. How democratic is that again?
commented 2015-10-26 20:08:41 -0400
Andrew Stephenson maybe look at who else has taken guns from the public, it may open your mind.
commented 2015-10-26 20:08:04 -0400
Andrew Stephenson then you would not care if we outlawed abortion, and sorry we have the right to defend ourselves halfwit.
commented 2015-10-26 20:06:04 -0400
Nathan W they did not report extensively on the sponsorship scandal until the cat was way out of the bag , and what about the Chretien connection to OKA? show me that, my fiance is form Quebec they never reported on the bumper stickers here in ALberta or the PET toilet paper. And sorry but they had hundreds more stories on speculation about Harper than they ever wrote about Chretin
commented 2015-10-26 20:03:53 -0400
Nathan W and then their is the stuff they hide , like the Levin trial , if not for Sun news it would have gone one without notice, the attack on the Jewish family in Calgary was ignored.
commented 2015-10-26 20:02:58 -0400
Nathan W well there was the lie about Rob Ford 911 call, the lies about ROBOCALLS , the lies about Harpers hidden agenda, troops on the streets.
commented 2015-10-26 20:01:42 -0400
Nathan W we do not plan on murdering anyone so why do we need a registry?? And they have taken guns from us before and will again.
commented 2015-10-26 15:37:48 -0400
And know I do NOT trust the death tasing gun grabbing RCMP.
commented 2015-10-26 15:36:54 -0400
Nathan W, how do you know what they are or aren’t planning. Am I or are you naive enough to this Liberal party is different than the former Liberal Party under Cretien – the authors of the gun registry?
commented 2015-10-26 12:40:13 -0400
Oh, noes! I am utterly terrified at losing a constitutional right Canadians never actually had! Woe! Horror! Terror! sniff
commented 2015-10-26 12:23:01 -0400
Okay, let’s try a bit of logic, here:

What good is a gun registry if the gang members and drug dealers don’t register theirs? We’ve been told (factual data contradicting the “telling”) that it allows police members to find out in advance if there are firearms in a given residence. But if the cops are taking down gang members (of whatever stripe, including bikers) and drug dealers and pimps and the like, their computers won’t show a bloody thing — because the criminals don’t register any weapons.

So, again, what good is a gun registry if the criminals don’t register their firearms?
commented 2015-10-26 07:24:45 -0400
atokenconservative – " I’ve seen several “panels” of various types, on all networks … Every single one of them had several of the NDP and Liberal lies about the Harper government repeated over and over again"

Name one. Betcha if you actually try to name it, it will be easy to point out that it was in fact completely true.

“But hey, they’re our beloved CBC, CTV, or whatever! Totally, completely unbiased and pure as angel’s tears.”

Please link us to one of these famed “biased CBC” articles. I’ve never observed one in person. However, much like they reported extensively about the sponsorship scandal under the Liberals, they also maintained journalistic integrity and reported on some of the scandals under Harper.

Peter Netterville – Name one step that the left has ever taken away from democracy. Recall, democracy will sometimes make decisions that you disagree with. That’s part of democracy.

Kenneth Lawrence – “Canada under JT will be a UN slave state.” – Try reading the UN charter. One of the first elements is that national sovereignty reins supreme. The UN can’t force anyone to do anything, they can just provide recommendations and structures within which independent nations can choose to do things.

Marty Ashfield – The RCMP are the guys who actually have to face those guns. Let them decide what’s too dangerous. You will still have plenty of options, so there’s nothing to worry about.

Kevin – Re: Allan Rock – Why should gun registration be a reason for suspicion?
commented 2015-10-26 06:54:48 -0400
The Liberals are not planning to take your guns away. No need to stock up on guns. This is classic NRA-style advertisement to get you to buy more guns.
commented 2015-10-26 01:21:14 -0400
We can just hide our guns in a Mosque , the libs would never dare take anything from there.
commented 2015-10-26 01:18:41 -0400
Terry Ruden AWWWW does the truth hurt little left wing babies like you?
commented 2015-10-25 19:49:26 -0400
As usual Terry, your argument isn’t even a real argument, it’s just an attempt to poke a stick in Ezra’s eye. You seem to be saying that there isn’t a media bias, and if there were it would be only here, only this isn’t a real media source. Something like that, anyway. So by your standard, CTV is biased because they didn’t provide some kind of counter point to that famous election night Harper hating rant by their Ottawa bureau chief. I’ve seen several “panels” of various types, on all networks, leading up to and that night. So have you, we all have. Every single one of them had several of the NDP and Liberal lies about the Harper government repeated over and over again, and unless there was a token Tory on the panel (not a given by any means) the media person there didn’t bat an eye. Sure the burka’s a religious issue! Of course, we all know it to be true that the Harper government’s cut funding to Indian Affairs to the point that people are starving to death because of it! It’s a commonly accepted fact that the Conservative administration’s the most divisive in Canadian history! And so on. No counter arguments, no pointing out by the moderator, or host, or whatever that those comments are factually untrue. But hey, they’re our beloved CBC, CTV, or whatever! Totally, completely unbiased and pure as angel’s tears. Not at all like this pathetic joke of a non-news site! And yet, when Brian does exactly the same thing, on a forum that doesn’t pretend to be unbiased, somehow in Terry’s mind that’s … what, exactly? What aspect of journalistic integrity is Brian failing at here? Oh, I get it! He’s not a fan of the CBC, which makes him guilty of something! Can’t have people thinking anything negative about our favourite nationally subsidized broadcaster now, can we?
Brian’s the one with integrity here Terry. You’re the joke. And you always will be, until you get it yourself.
commented 2015-10-25 17:57:39 -0400
Darryl, so true. I seems that every time that the dudleys go after the real criminals they get their asses handed to them. Or they just murder some poor native kid that’s hiding out unarmed in a shack.
commented 2015-10-25 13:47:34 -0400
Harvard University Study Reveals Astonishing Link Between Firearms, Crime and Gun Control
By the early 1990s, Russia’s murder rate was three times higher than that of the United States. Thus, “in the United States and the former Soviet Union transitioning into current-day Russia,” say Kates and Mauser, “homicide results suggest that where guns are scarce, other weapons are substituted in killings.”
Read more at http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Articles/Harvard-University-Study-Reveals-Astonishing-Link.aspx?p=1#3es83eFCciIWfeA6.99
commented 2015-10-25 11:57:13 -0400
Darryl said, “The progressives always go after the easy targets, to scard of the criminals i guess, …”

I tend to think that it is because they criminals are their kind. Birds of a feather and all, you know.
commented 2015-10-25 11:42:58 -0400
After the high river gun grab and the media coverup, most i know will never ever register there guns ever. Now JT will let the police make the laws, Just like they did in high river. The progressives always go after the easy targets, to scard of the criminals i guess, they could try something new and PUNISH THOSE WHO USE GUNS TO COMMIT CRIMES, seems all they want to do is punish anyone who defends him self or his family or proptery so they can bring in the hug a thug bs again.
commented 2015-10-25 09:58:55 -0400
Deborah, that is the nature of the left / socialists, that of tyranny. It is just dressed up in “democracy”, but everything the left does takes us one small step further away from democracy, small enough steps that most people cannot see it.
commented 2015-10-25 08:23:54 -0400
Long gone are the days when my step-father left his shotguns, resting in the corner, against the wall. My brother and I used to go hunting, when we were 13-14 years old, when the SK prairies were still being tamed. We used to dynamite beaver dams, with our step-father. Can you imagine the outrage now, if people knew that we had those kinds of freedoms? The left want us to believe, that they have the right, to take our guns away, and I don’t believe that they have. The nannies seem to think they have the right, to steal the rights of others, because if they can’t sweet talk you with words, to convince you that their beliefs, are the correct beliefs, then they will make you comply, by force. We will be one step closer to tyranny, if people surrender their guns.