Open Letter to Ducks Unlimited

DU does not care about the right to bear arms in Canada. They care about buying and maintaining waterfowl habitat in Canada to maintain good numbers of birds going south for US hunters. Getting involved in politics up here puts their relationship with provincial and federal governments in jeopardy. We went through this during the registration uproar years ago.
 
G.Mitchell said:
Classic Canada vs American mentality at play with Ducks Unlimited.

Here is the US DU statement.

DU strongly supports the right to bear arms and believes that with that right comes a responsibility to use firearms lawfully and safely. The ownership and use of firearms is intertwined with wildlife management and conservation in North America, and we strongly support hunting. Without hunters and recreational shooters and their financial contributions through hunting licenses and excise taxes on sporting arms, national conservation funding would be decimated.

We will continue to hold ourselves to the highest standards of gun safety, hunting ethics, and responsible firearms ownership and use.
Click to expand...

Awesome.
 
1ABNDT said:
Really! Why don't you brush up.


The Legal basis for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Canada.

Many Canadians believe (and our government would certainly have us believe) that there is no Right of the citizen to keep arms for their own use and defense, like the US Second Amendment, in Canadian law.

To those citizens, I would suggest a bit of reading up on our own history and legal framework.

Our right to bear arms is not mentioned in recent documents such as the Constitution or Charter because it's already stated elsewhere in Canadian law.


We have this Right, though our government is attempting to suppress it and deny citizen's their age-old right to self-defense with the egregious and unconstitutional (not to mention horrendously expensive) Firearms Act and other proposals. It leads one to wonder why the government so wants an unarmed and defenceless populace.


Our right to keep and bear arms in our own or the country's defense comes from exactly the same place as the American one -- English Common Law, the English Bill of Rights 1689, the writings of Sir William Blackstone in his Commentaries on English Law, and others. All these laws (and indeed the full body of English Law), became part of Canadian law on our Confederation in 1867 with the affirmation of the British North America (BNA) Act.



The Canadian Right to Bear Arms

The common law right to bear arms has existed for at least 300 years in Anglo-Canadian law. Although it may have had its origins even earlier,42 the first explicit recognition of this right appears in the English Bill of Rights (1689), designed by Parliament to constrain the power of the new King after the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Article VII of this document states:

That the subjects which are Protestant may have arms for their defence, suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law.

Article VII thus indicates that Protestants in Great Britain enjoyed the right to bear arms, subject to certain restrictions placed upon the right by Parliament, restrictions that were usually related to class. The right to bear arms was so fundamental to the British constitutional system that in the next century Sir William Blackstone, the celebrated author of the Commentaries on the Laws of England, included this right among the five most fundamental auxiliary rights of British subjects, including such fundamental tenets as Parliamentary supremacy and the right of subjects to seek redress for grievances in courts of law. Blackstone laid out the right to bear arms as follows:

The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. st. 2. c. 2 (the English Bill Of Rights), and it is indeed, a public allowance under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

Although this right has been regulated in various ways since its promulgation, it remains part of one of the most important legal instruments in British constitutional history. This right was passed down to Canada through the preamble of the British North America Act (1867) which grants Canada “a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom,” a phrase which transfers to and entrenches the British common law legacy in Canada - including the right to keep arms.

A counter argument has been made to the claim that there is a right to own firearms in Canada by Lois G. Schwoerer. Schwoerer argues that Article VII in the 1688 English Bill of Rights did nothing more than grant Britons a communal right to self-defence; the right of the British to have an armed militia for the common defence of their territory. According to Schwoerer, Article VII did not grant individuals a right to own firearms for self-protection, and there is no common law foundation for such a right.43

Joyce Malcolm effectively rebuts Schwoerer’s evidence. Malcolm points out that many of the drafters of the English Bill of Rights were lawyers who knew the importance of draftsmanship and statutory interpretation. Such people would undoubtedly have included a reference to a common or communal right to bear arms if they had intended it not to apply strictly to individuals. As well, farmers of the American Bill of Rights, basing their document on its British ancestor, included a right for individuals to bear arms in their document, so sure were they that their citizens had enjoyed a right to bear arms under British rule:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Malcolm buttresses her position with several British precedents. In R. v. Gardner 93 E.R. 1056, it was ruled that the keeping of a gun for self-defence was a legal and permissible act in England, provided that it was not used for unlawful purposes (in this case, for hunting, an activity prohibited to members of the lower class such as the accused). In Wingfield v. Stratford and Osman 96 E.R. 787, a similar ruling was made confirming the right of individuals to bear arms for their self-defence.

The right to bear arms is not absolute, and has been subject to regulation by law since at least the time of the Glorious Revolution. Regulation, however, does not extinguish this right. In R. v. Sparrow [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075 the Supreme Court affirmed that regulation of an aboriginal right does not automatically extinguish the right. Mutatis mutandi, the same logic applies to section 26 rights such as the right to bear arms.

Indeed, the historical right of the descendants of European settlers to bear arms can be no less than the right of Aboriginal Canadians to possess firearms, since the latter only acquired firearms with the arrival of the former. It can hardly be maintained that there is an Aboriginal right to bear arms but not a similar right for non-Aboriginals, when it was European settlers who first brought firearms to North American and its Aboriginal inhabitants. The right to bear arms is thus a historical right of all Canadians, and this right is affirmed and extended by section 26 of the Charter.

A right that has been entrenched in constitutional and quasi-constitutional documents for three centuries, recognized in judicial interpretation, and accorded constitutional pre-eminence by one of the most renowned commentators on British law, is protected in Canada through section 26 of the Charter. Since the Firearms Act prohibits the mere possession of a firearm—even for purposes of self-defense in one’s own home—it restricts this right. Given the intimate connection between the right of self-defense and to rights to life, liberty and security of the person protected by section 7 of the Charter, the state must justify its restriction of this right according to the strict tests mandated by the Oakes precedent.
Click to expand...

Thank you 1ABNDT for this great information!.....:)

So my question is why doesn't CFFR or some other similar organization fight for this in court? I know the turd's so called Dad tried to remove all our rights with firearms when he re-wrote the Constitution and Charter in the 80's, but can't someone with money take this to the Supreme Court of Canada to end this bull####?

You obviously are well educated, I would love to here your thoughts and others as well.......:)
 
the courts are all ruled by liberal judges.. spit all the facts in their faces and they will still rule in favour of king justine. no suprises from fudds unlimited only suprise to me was that they are on the advisory commitee.
 
1ABNDT said:
Really! Why don't you brush up.


The Legal basis for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Canada.

Many Canadians believe (and our government would certainly have us believe) that there is no Right of the citizen to keep arms for their own use and defense, like the US Second Amendment, in Canadian law.

To those citizens, I would suggest a bit of reading up on our own history and legal framework.

Our right to bear arms is not mentioned in recent documents such as the Constitution or Charter because it's already stated elsewhere in Canadian law.


We have this Right, though our government is attempting to suppress it and deny citizen's their age-old right to self-defense with the egregious and unconstitutional (not to mention horrendously expensive) Firearms Act and other proposals. It leads one to wonder why the government so wants an unarmed and defenceless populace.


Our right to keep and bear arms in our own or the country's defense comes from exactly the same place as the American one -- English Common Law, the English Bill of Rights 1689, the writings of Sir William Blackstone in his Commentaries on English Law, and others. All these laws (and indeed the full body of English Law), became part of Canadian law on our Confederation in 1867 with the affirmation of the British North America (BNA) Act.



The Canadian Right to Bear Arms

The common law right to bear arms has existed for at least 300 years in Anglo-Canadian law. Although it may have had its origins even earlier,42 the first explicit recognition of this right appears in the English Bill of Rights (1689), designed by Parliament to constrain the power of the new King after the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Article VII of this document states:

That the subjects which are Protestant may have arms for their defence, suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law.

Article VII thus indicates that Protestants in Great Britain enjoyed the right to bear arms, subject to certain restrictions placed upon the right by Parliament, restrictions that were usually related to class. The right to bear arms was so fundamental to the British constitutional system that in the next century Sir William Blackstone, the celebrated author of the Commentaries on the Laws of England, included this right among the five most fundamental auxiliary rights of British subjects, including such fundamental tenets as Parliamentary supremacy and the right of subjects to seek redress for grievances in courts of law. Blackstone laid out the right to bear arms as follows:

The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. st. 2. c. 2 (the English Bill Of Rights), and it is indeed, a public allowance under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

Although this right has been regulated in various ways since its promulgation, it remains part of one of the most important legal instruments in British constitutional history. This right was passed down to Canada through the preamble of the British North America Act (1867) which grants Canada “a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom,” a phrase which transfers to and entrenches the British common law legacy in Canada - including the right to keep arms.

A counter argument has been made to the claim that there is a right to own firearms in Canada by Lois G. Schwoerer. Schwoerer argues that Article VII in the 1688 English Bill of Rights did nothing more than grant Britons a communal right to self-defence; the right of the British to have an armed militia for the common defence of their territory. According to Schwoerer, Article VII did not grant individuals a right to own firearms for self-protection, and there is no common law foundation for such a right.43

Joyce Malcolm effectively rebuts Schwoerer’s evidence. Malcolm points out that many of the drafters of the English Bill of Rights were lawyers who knew the importance of draftsmanship and statutory interpretation. Such people would undoubtedly have included a reference to a common or communal right to bear arms if they had intended it not to apply strictly to individuals. As well, farmers of the American Bill of Rights, basing their document on its British ancestor, included a right for individuals to bear arms in their document, so sure were they that their citizens had enjoyed a right to bear arms under British rule:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Malcolm buttresses her position with several British precedents. In R. v. Gardner 93 E.R. 1056, it was ruled that the keeping of a gun for self-defence was a legal and permissible act in England, provided that it was not used for unlawful purposes (in this case, for hunting, an activity prohibited to members of the lower class such as the accused). In Wingfield v. Stratford and Osman 96 E.R. 787, a similar ruling was made confirming the right of individuals to bear arms for their self-defence.

The right to bear arms is not absolute, and has been subject to regulation by law since at least the time of the Glorious Revolution. Regulation, however, does not extinguish this right. In R. v. Sparrow [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075 the Supreme Court affirmed that regulation of an aboriginal right does not automatically extinguish the right. Mutatis mutandi, the same logic applies to section 26 rights such as the right to bear arms.

Indeed, the historical right of the descendants of European settlers to bear arms can be no less than the right of Aboriginal Canadians to possess firearms, since the latter only acquired firearms with the arrival of the former. It can hardly be maintained that there is an Aboriginal right to bear arms but not a similar right for non-Aboriginals, when it was European settlers who first brought firearms to North American and its Aboriginal inhabitants. The right to bear arms is thus a historical right of all Canadians, and this right is affirmed and extended by section 26 of the Charter.

A right that has been entrenched in constitutional and quasi-constitutional documents for three centuries, recognized in judicial interpretation, and accorded constitutional pre-eminence by one of the most renowned commentators on British law, is protected in Canada through section 26 of the Charter. Since the Firearms Act prohibits the mere possession of a firearm—even for purposes of self-defense in one’s own home—it restricts this right. Given the intimate connection between the right of self-defense and to rights to life, liberty and security of the person protected by section 7 of the Charter, the state must justify its restriction of this right according to the strict tests mandated by the Oakes precedent.
Click to expand...

It’s probably bad form to quote a post this long, however it’s the single most informative, relevant and well written things I’ve seen on this forum so I figured it couldn’t hurt to have it in another page.

More pertinent to the thread: Thanks for sticking up for us yet again Wolverine.
 
Last edited:
You guys need to read up what the word MOSTLY means :)

...and even if you are not a FUDD you are supporting an organization that doesn't support most shooting sports and most Restricted guns because "you can't hunt with that!" if you are supporting DU!!!
 
Thunderhog said:
Thank you 1ABNDT for this great information!.....:)

So my question is why doesn't CFFR or some other similar organization fight for this in court? I know the turd's so called Dad tried to remove all our rights with firearms when he re-wrote the Constitution and Charter in the 80's, but can't someone with money take this to the Supreme Court of Canada to end this bull####?

You obviously are well educated, I would love to here your thoughts and others as well.......:)
Click to expand...

Because it takes money to lobby the government, they use our tax dollars against us for unlimited lawyers. And out of 2.2 million firearm owners only about 200,000 are members of 3 FA org combined, CSSA, CCFR, NFA. The rest don't believe in FA orgs, and ride the coattails of the members who are. Or are just straight up @$$####$ who spend more on coffee in a month than the price of a membership. Basically DB'S.

If the FA orgs combined had 2.2 million members and people who donate, we would really be a political force to be reckoned with.
 
mr.fatstacks said:
It’s probably bad form to quote a post this long, however it’s the single most informative, relevant and well written things I’ve seen on this forum so I figured it couldn’t hurt to have it in another page.

More pertinent to the thread: Thanks for sticking up for us yet again Wolverine.
Click to expand...

If more people joined firearm organizations they could find this exact info right on there websites under the "Legal" section.
 
I am very surprised to learn that Ducks Unlimited took that stance. I was always under the firm impression that they worked hand in hand with hunting and firearms organizations to secure not only funding, but also awareness about their work.

Seems like a very bold move to take such an anti firearm stance when they could have simply put a link to the poll in a dark corner of their website and forgotten about it, even if they only halfheartedly agreed with it. An outright statement like that was clearly not thought through and surely some emergency meetings are being scheduled to work their way through the incoming political s**tstorm they just opened from what is likely their largest supporter.

I never have given to that particular organization before, but I am interested to see what their next public statement will be before getting out the (pre-sharpened) pitchforks.
 
My email to DU.



Good day DU, I am contacting you today to let you know that pending immediately I am pulling all funding/donations/support from your organization. As a firearm owner I am disgusted on your stance in the non support of Petition E-2341 put forth by Glen Motz, you have turned your back on the firearms community. We have had enough of your behaviour and in return we will turn our backs to you, you have forgotten your core values and the people who have supported you through out the years. If as you state now you are a conservation organization, what exactly are/were you doing sitting on the RCMP Firearms Commission Committee if you do not support firearms. If your not with us then its obvious by your actions your against us.

Thanking you for your time.
 
Last edited:
I scratched out an email to DU, then sent one off to the Canadian Wild Turkey Federation.

What other similar organization's are there out there?


Before I could post this, I got a quick reply from the CWTF :d

>Thanks ###xx,
>
> CWTF has been following this as well. We plan to post a statement with the petition as well as an email to all our members and followers.
>
>Thanks
>
>Terr

I replied;

Thanks for your quick reply! Please do ASAP, there is only 10 days left. We need to get the word out far and wide.
 
Why are most people here shocked at DU response? They didnt join the fight to scrap bill c68 the long gun registry, why would they support this petition? Since then I joined Delta Waterfowl a true hunting and conservation organization that is pro gun.
 
The hypocrisy is unbelievable! If they want to take the stand of "We're only a conservation organization", then get the hell off of the Firearms Advisory Committee, stop putting your name on firearms that you raffle/auction off and stop anything to do with hunting PERIOD!!!

Then you won't be talking out of both sides of your mouth and not back stabbing hunters with your Political Crap Ideology!!!
 
The irony in their calendar and it’s content and the mans history behind his legacy and donation is troubling for for all sportsmen! This truly shows they are only interested in your money!
I wonder how many bird hunters will be surprised by the announcement that they can no longer use their semiautomatic shotguns and have to turn them in if this goes badly!??
 
CzyHorse said:
I scratched out an email to DU, then sent one off to the Canadian Wild Turkey Federation.

What other similar organization's are there out there?


Before I could post this, I got a quick reply from the CWTF :d

>Thanks ###xx,
>
> CWTF has been following this as well. We plan to post a statement with the petition as well as an email to all our members and followers.
>
>Thanks
>
>Terr

I replied;

Thanks for your quick reply! Please do ASAP, there is only 10 days left. We need to get the word out far and wide.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your taking the time to email, CH.
 
duckdog1 said:
Why are most people here shocked at DU response? They didnt join the fight to scrap bill c68 the long gun registry, why would they support this petition? Since then I joined Delta Waterfowl a true hunting and conservation organization that is pro gun.
Click to expand...

Smitsauce said:
The hypocrisy is unbelievable! If they want to take the stand of "We're only a conservation organization", then get the hell off of the Firearms Advisory Committee, stop putting your name on firearms that you raffle/auction off and stop anything to do with hunting PERIOD!!!

Then you won't be talking out of both sides of your mouth and not back stabbing hunters with your Political Crap Ideology!!!
Click to expand...

Ajax148 said:
The irony in their calendar and it’s content and the mans history behind his legacy and donation is troubling for for all sportsmen! This truly shows they are only interested in your money!
I wonder how many bird hunters will be surprised by the announcement that they can no longer use their semiautomatic shotguns and have to turn them in if this goes badly!??
Click to expand...


Take a few minutes and email DU with your stance on there conduct. Let them know that this is unacceptable, and will not be tolerated. They can't hear you from hear. TY.
 
All you have to do is look at Ducks Unlimited Canada finance statement for 2019 and you see they got 40.4 million dollars from Federal government smells to me conflict of interest!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom