OneClearVoice!!! *UPDATE*

[fire@will]

Link not working in the thread

Didn't work for me, either - so I copied the body of the letter and pasted it into a new e-mail - and added the various liberals, to the address bar. It "sent" fine.

[Mrhager]

Letter sent! Lets make sure our two million+ voices are heard load and clear in Ottawa.

[hans slayer]

Done

[jebnert]

Did this a few days ago and got friends and family to do so aswell.

[Forester1986]

Done. The basis of being free is being eroded by those who feel that authoritarianism through democracy is acceptable. Liberty and Freedom exist only on the surface of Canada. Gun owners need to stop being thankful to the government for the table scraps they are given. Rise and be counted as one who believes in your God given natural right under Section 7 of our charter of rights and freedoms.

[jjr]

I received this back from my MP:

xxxxxxx,


Thank you for reaching out to me regarding Bill C-71, An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms. I appreciate you taking the time to outline your position on the Bill.


To be clear, Bill C-71 is in no way meant to undermine the rights of law-abiding gun owners— it is meant to close loopholes and make it harder for individuals who should not have a gun from getting one. I am steadfast in my support of law abiding citizen’s right to own a legal weapon.


While I believe strongly in an individual’s right to legally own a gun, we have to acknowledge that Canada and New Brunswick are not immune to gun related violence. The number of firearm-related homicides in Canada hit 223 in 2016 — up 44 from 2015, and the third consecutive annual increase. There were 141 gang-related homicides in 2016, 45 more than the previous year.


With this legislation, we are taking concrete steps to make our country less vulnerable to the threat of gun violence, while treating law-abiding firearms owners in a fair and reasonable manner. The new legislation proposes to:


· Enhance background checks on those seeking to acquire firearms – looking at the full life history of a person, including any history of mental illness associated with violence, not just over the last five years.

· Require that whenever a non-restricted firearm is transferred, the buyer must actually produce his/her licence, and the vendor must verify that it is valid.

· Ensure the impartial, professional, accurate and consistent classification of firearms by restoring a system in which Parliament defines the classes and then experts in the RCMP make the technical determination about the class into which a particular firearm falls into, without political influence.

· Except between a residence and an approved shooting range, require specific transportation authorizations to be obtained whenever restricted and prohibited guns (mostly handguns and assault weapons) are moved through the community.

· Standardize record-keeping of sales by firearms retailers, already a common “best-practice” in the industry. This information would be accessible to police officers (not governments) on reasonable grounds and with judicial authorization.


I would like to reiterate that this bill is not meant to undermine the rights of individuals to legally own a gun, it is meant to save lives.



I would again like to thank you for sharing your perspective with me.


Sincerely,




Matt DeCourcey MP

Fredericton

My reply:

Matt, I will have to respectfully disagree with your assessment of C71.

First, I will lead off with saying that I have no issues with the enhanced background check portion of this bill.

Firearms owners are the most vetted members of society, and 1/3 as likely to commit a violent crime as someone who has no PAL, and everything in this bill directly affects us while there is nothing in there to target gangs or gun violence, such as longer sentences for violent crimes, or crimes committed with a firearm.

Also, your point of making firearms classification non-political with handing it over to the RCMP is kind of proven wrong by the fact that this bill specifically bans 2 firearms: the Swiss Arms Classic Green as well as 4 versions of the CZ858. These are simply 2 semi automatic rifles, and many people have taken deer with their CZ858s. C71 also takes the ability away for parliament to take firearms off the prohibited or restricted list by name, while leaving the ability for parliament to ban firearms by OIC. If you really wanted the appearance of being impartial with relation to prohibiting firearms, you would also remove all the OIC's prohibiting firearms by name (or simply by virtue of being a "variant" of a prohibited firearm) and let the RCMP reclassify all of those firearms by their technical details, such as full auto capability, etc.

This bill also creates a new prohibited category, 12.9, which is to be used for further prohibitions down the road. Law abiding firearms owners have been down this road before and know what this will lead to, we really aren't that dumb.

I won't even touch on the portions of this bill which essentially return a "shadow" long gun registry, but suffice to say it will be as ineffective, inaccurate and most likely just as an expensive a waste of time as the previous one.

Thank you for your timely response and I look forward to hearing back from you.

EDIT: Also, this is the first time I've crafted a letter to an MP myself rather than filling out a form, so any feedback you guys have would be cool. I found I was all over the place and kept switching back to another paragraph to add something to that while I was working on another one.

[MountedMadness]

Here’s my idea, let me know what you think.

Everyone with a CZ858 takes their rifle to a gunsmith to have it inspected. The gunsmith with “certify” that no modifications have been made to alter the firearm into a fully automatic rifle. If we mail a ton of these “certificates of semi auto only” to the MPs, it would prove we are honourable and honest gun owners while showing how the government does not trust us in return.

I would even pay $100 to have my rifle certified as “semi auto.”



Thoughts?

Reverend...I know you're thinking outside the box, but voluntary "registration" would be the outcome of such an effort.
The majority of the C-71 and C-68 and every regulation out there, are, like speeding, "found committing" offences.
Other then Hay River and Surrey, there has not been any real effort by the government to seek out firearms that are non-compliant with the law and regulations.
Now "found committing" would be having that "prohibited" 25 round 10/22 magazine out in the bush with you when you're shooting squirrels.
Along comes the local conservation officer who "finds you committing" the offence of possession of a prohibited magazine.
That might cascade into a series of searches conducted at your residence and any other property you might have.
I am not condoning or suggesting anyone defy the law here - I'm just saying that there's little need to supply provide anyone with that information unless required by law - even with good intentions considered.
Remember - this is a government that doesn't rely on fact or statistics - it relies on its on agenda and nothing more.
This is the same government that the PM said Vice-Admiral Mark Norman would be charged - before the investigation was complete - so it might be best to avoid becoming a lightening rod.

[swifto]

Done, letter sent. I'm in Ontario.
Thanks Wolverine

[Jake1911]

Also, this is the first time I've crafted a letter to an MP myself rather than filling out a form, so any feedback you guys have would be cool. I found I was all over the place and kept switching back to another paragraph to add something to that while I was working on another one.

Concise and well said, good response

[Forester1986]

Great job JJR...it’s hard not to be all over the place and get fired up when these talking heads have no clue what they are propagandizing about. These people care nothing about your freedoms, rather just the voting mass. The majority of people do not understand anything about firearms and therefore any decision is based on uneducated bias and emotional news stories, neither of which should be involved in policy making.