FUND THE FIGHT! - Support for Judicial Review

[Marcelm]

One of the leading firearms lawyers in the country has reviewed this already and said there wasn't much that can be done. Want to keep your guns, donate to the Conservative party and hope there is another election within 2 years and that the Conservative win. They are your only hope right now. If they lose, kiss your guns good bye forever. Only other choice is don't comply and be prepared to flush your life down the toilet when they show up to get them and take you to jail.

Indeed, source and name of lawyer please

[BCreserveMP]

source?

I would like to know, too. At this juncture any good lawyer, particularly a "leading" one, would still be assessing this very complicated situation. The case law on this even on its own will take weeks to obtain and analyse.

[Chuckbuster]

I think we already are. That OiC was rushed out, with many mistakes and omissions, misleading statements of "fact" and conflicting language which will prove problematic for them in court. When even journalists from the Star are taking second looks at the reasoning and timing of this, that really says something.

Going to be interesting, no matter what!

Is it possible for you to post the articles in question? I went to have a look on their website and articles on the ban are hidden behind a pay wall. Thanks.

[BCreserveMP]

Is it possible for you to post the articles in question? I went to have a look on their website and articles on the ban are hidden behind a pay wall. Thanks.

One of them is my friend. He is writing something now. It's not focusing on the guns but on the abuse of power.

[Marcelm]

One of them is my friend. He is writing something now. It's not focusing on the guns but on the abuse of power.

Good approach. "They" are trying to make it about "assault weapons", dividing and contentious use of language to play on emotions. We need to focus on policy, protocol and procedure. Based on the legislation and handling of this file, DEFINITELY not their strong suit

[midnightvisions]

I've been through the appeals court and was not impressed.

They look for any excuse to deny what you present. Their entire purpose is not to be a second attempt at a ruling in your favor,

You have to show that the previous ruling / decision / or legislation was in contravention of a previous decision, higher court, or violates your constitutional rights.

The Appeals Court is notorious for doing what it wants, and does not have to find or provide answers.

Just because the Liberals eliminated the safe guards to make this OIC happen, is not grounds for a successful challenge cause Governments make and change legislation. It has to be shown how this change violated your rights, or the rights of 200k firearms owners.

A case might be made from page 58 where it references Section 35 of the Indian Act, and hunting for sustenance, that this provides an unfair situation for non indigenous people living in the north, that the first nations can hunt for food, but everyone else can't. That would be the best bet for challenging this, and it could be a constitutional challenge. But at best I feel it would only allow all people to continue to hunt for sustenance until the two years period has expired.

[Marcelm]

I've been through the appeals court and was not impressed.

They look for any excuse to deny what you present. Their entire purpose is not to be a second attempt at a ruling in your favor,

You have to show that the previous ruling / decision / or legislation was in contravention of a previous decision, higher court, or violates your constitutional rights.

The Appeals Court is notorious for doing what it wants, and does not have to find or provide answers.

Just because the Liberals eliminated the safe guards to make this OIC happen, is not grounds for a successful challenge cause Governments make and change legislation. It has to be shown how this change violated your rights, or the rights of 200k firearms owners.

A case might be made from page 58 where it references Section 35 of the Indian Act, and hunting for sustenance, that this provides an unfair situation for non indigenous people living in the north, that the first nations can hunt for food, but everyone else can't. That would be the best bet for challenging this, and it could be a constitutional challenge. But at best I feel it would only allow all people to continue to hunt for sustenance until the two years period has expired.

Success in court can depend heavily on your Judge. I anticipate going to court on 3 separate challenges, one for each affected firearm I currently possess. Plus I'll be watching the CCFR Charter Challenge closely. Plus I expect 100s of other Nutz to be making their own challenges. Someone is going to be able to establish some amount of precedent out of all this. Any if not then at least we gave 110%. If my rifle is going to be a safe queen, then I'll sit by my safe with a glass of Scotch knowing I did everything in my power.

Expect to win and you might. Expect to lose and you will.

[SigWig]

Update?

[Marcelm]

I sent an email to our claims expert earlier today to discuss this to find out if and how we can help in this matter. Once i know more, ill be sure to let everyone else know.

Regards,
Zach

No updates yet. Zach, anything you can tell us?

[Leadwizard]

Sadly needed to get that Trudollar, so once that comes in the bank I'll use some of the to get a membership to the CCFR.