OneClearVoice!!! *UPDATE*

[Doug_M]

I appreciate all the work that has been put into this. Thank you Doug

If i may pesume to suggest a campaign; I live in a riding that was won by an NDP candidate. I think we should target the Conservative candidates in riding like mine and offer support if thier party should their MPs more vocally object to the bill. It is not enough for a minority to vote against it, they need to make noise and draw the facts into the debate.

We did that with campaign #3. But the Liberals have ended debate so there will be no more opportunities for MP's to speak against it in the House. The bill has been sent to committee which hasn't sat yet and isn't even scheduled. However I expect to see it scheduled once this two week break they are on is over. After committee it will go to the House for a vote (again the MP's won't get to speak to it). It will pass the vote as the Liberals will whip their members. Then it goes to the Senate. So upcoming campaigns will target the committee (once scheduled) and then target the Senate.

For people who have a Conservative MP I would hope they too send campaign #7 to them as it provides those facts to refute everything the Liberals have been saying about C-71 thus far.

[Doug_M]

I have so far sent emails for all 7 to everyone in all the distribution lists, but I have not received any replies except for the automatic receipts. Is it possible my emails are being flagged as spam by the government firewall? I just use a regular hotmail account.

Doubtful. Links and photos can get flagged and bulk email. While there are a couple URLs in the email they are not actually linked and there are no photos. The subject lines are all different (this time round it is just your name and location).

All I've ever receive are the auto-replies as well. From the reports I've seen very few people have received an actual reply.

[armorman]

#7 on its way...

[rockport guy]

Dided till it done.

[squidxm]

I finally got my first reply (other than auto generated replies) from my local MP. It just included the general talking points provided by the Minister and links to two articles; the "shop owner in Belleville who supports the bill" and a Vice (sooo anti gun, ugh) article about a Canadian Forces vet (Josh Makuch) who supports more gun control. I especially liked this quote from his article.. "I don’t hunt or own guns personally, but many of my friends do." Ben Makuch appears to be the Vice News reporter in the middle of the legal battle regarding handing over material to the RCMP for investigation.

[swifto]

#7 Sent

[ian745]

im getting a bad request error 400 every time i go to press send on #7, all the others worked fine?

[ian745]

can someone copy and paste the content for # 7? id like to join in, but nothing i do is letting me escape that stupid error ...ugh

[Doug_M]

The Hon. Ralph Goodale, P.C., M.P.:

It has become evident to the firearms community that our MP’s have been given talking points about bill C-71 to repeat to their constituents. I would like to address those talking points, starting with the premise for the bill.

First you stated a dramatic rise in gun crime since 2013. You used 2013 as a point of comparison at the Gangs and Guns summit, at your press conference introducing C-71, and in the House of Commons during the 2nd reading of the bill. While it is true, it is nonetheless a dishonest statement meant to mislead the public. The CBC called you out on this with an article (ref. 1) that showed 2013 to be an anomalous year. So anomalous in fact that Canada’s homicide rate was the lowest in 50 years and it was “the lowest rate of fatal shootings ever recorded by Statistics Canada.” Let me repeat that for absolute clarity, 2013 saw the lowest rate of gun homicides ever recorded in Canada.

The article further stated, to be objective a statistician “would look at how a particular year compares to the average of the 10 years preceding it” and “a few years does not a trend make.” As for later years “if, rather than picking the lowest year for comparison, one were to ask how 2016 compared with a decade before, one would find that the rate of firearms homicides remained boringly unchanged.” I won’t quote the whole article but it goes on to shoot more holes in your premise for C-71.

Enhanced background checks is a dog whistle term that has been imported from the US. Do we have a problem with the existing background check system? The lack of gun crime perpetrated by licensed gun owners would strongly indicate we do not. Violent offenders are given firearms prohibition orders. Those with such orders do not get PALs. Who will evaluate these new extended background checks? What will their qualifications be? Will they have a degree in clinical psychology? Why is there no appeal process for these new background checks? What is the cost of these enhanced checks going to be on an on-going basis? Where is the evidence the existing 5-year background checks are failing public safety?

The transfer system is supposed to be about verifying a buyer's license. If so, then why the need for an expensive registrar and transfer system? Why not just change the wording of the Firearms Act to require verbal or online validation? Instead, you are creating the same infrastructure of the wasteful long gun registry. Just because the firearm itself isn’t recorded doesn’t mean this won’t be another costly boondoggle. Such as system is not capable of preventing straw purchases from private sellers either despite your claim in the House of Commons that it could.

Another concern is the requirement for businesses to maintain records for 20 years. Here you have created potentially thousands of mini long gun registries. What are the security implications with that many registries? Will it be a book (eventually several books) under the counter? Who will have access? Will there be thousands of databases created on computers that can be hacked and information about firearms locations sold to gangs?

Another talking point: “restoring a system in which Parliament defines firearms classes and then experts in the RCMP make the technical determination about which class a particular firearm falls into, without political influence. This will ensure the impartial, professional, accurate and consistent classification of firearms.” Well we know from recent history that the RCMP is anything but impartial, accurate or consistent with classification. Perhaps more importantly we also know that “converted auto” and “variant” are not well defined in the Firearms Act.

More egregiously you are not putting classification solely in the hands of the RCMP at all, despite your claims otherwise. You have kept the ability through the Governor in Council to decree any firearm restricted or prohibited. If you truly believe in the definitions outlined in the Firearms Act are enough for the RCMP to work with, then you will also eliminate the existing OIC’s where a firearm is named prohibited or restricted contrary to said definitions.

Authorizations to transport are a holdover from the pre-Firearms Act days where a Firearms Acquisition Certificate was required to obtain but not possess a firearm. With the Firearms Act and current licensing system the authorization to transport makes no sense and has zero impact on public safety. The Firearms Act, section 19, states explicitly where restricted and prohibited firearms may be transported. An owner’s Possession and Acquisition License for restricted and/or prohibited firearms is their authorization under the Firearms Act to transport. How wasteful of resources both paper and electronic authorizations to transport are and a complete sham where public safety is concerned.

Finally, the re-formed Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee is neither balanced nor more representative. You have no one who is involved in the shooting sports so popular today (restricted pistols and rifles) or anyone who is a true expert on firearms such as an experienced gunsmith or manufacturer. But most atrociously you have a person with a big conflict of interest, namely Natalie Provost.

Ms Provost is a high profile member and spokesperson for Poly Remembers, a group that lobbies the government for more gun control. The Advisory Committee’s terms of reference forbid members to engage in lobbying activities. Yet in November 2017, Poly Remembers sent a letter (ref. 2) to the government, co-signed by Ms Provost, lobbying for more gun control with very specific requests. Some of those requests are now part of bill C-71.

Licensed gun owners want a reduction in gun violence just as much as any other Canadian does, perhaps more so as we are often made scapegoats for the actions of others as we are now with bill C-71. This is not a solution. It is the politics of convenience in order to be seen doing “something”.

Enough!

Restricting the actions of the innocent has no positive effect on the horrible actions of the malevolent. Your attack on the innocent people of Canada must cease. It doesn’t have to be that way. You can make a real difference instead of political enemies. Scrap C-71. Gun owners will support you in real efforts to tackle gangs, criminals and the root causes of both.

Yours sincerely,


Refs: (1) http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/gun-...nada-1.4585097
(2) http://polysesouvient.ca/Documents/M...es_GENERIC.pdf

Cc: The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau, Office of the Prime Minister of Canada
Colin Fraser, M.P., House of Commons
Hon. Jody Wilson-Raybould, Minister of Justice
Hon. Mélanie Joly, Minister of Canadian Heritage
Hon. Larry Bagnell, M.P., House of Commons
Hon. Wayne Easter, M.P., House of Commons
Bill Blair, M.P., House of Commons
Sean Casey, M.P., House of Commons
Mark Holland, M.P., House of Commons
Marco Mendicino, M.P., House of Commons
T.J. Harvey, M.P., House of Commons
Gudie Hutchings, M.P., House of Commons


ralph.goodale@parl.gc.ca, justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca, Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca, mcu@justice.gc.ca, Melanie.Joly@parl.gc.ca, hon.melanie.joly@canada.ca, Larry.Bagnell@parl.gc.ca, wayne.easter@parl.gc.ca, Bill.Blair@parl.gc.ca, Sean.Casey@parl.gc.ca, Mark.Holland@parl.gc.ca, Marco.Mendicino@parl.gc.ca, TJ.Harvey@parl.gc.ca, Gudie.Hutchings@parl.gc.ca

[valk775]

sent