Was just doing some digging, and, apparently the GOVERNOR GENERAL of Canada is the patron of the DCRA. (Dominion of Canada Rifle Association)
For those unaware "The Dominion of Canada Rifle Association was founded in 1868 and incorporated by an Act of Parliament 63-64 Victoria Chapter 99, assented to July 7, 1900, to promote and encourage the training of marksmanship throughout Canada".
^Taken from the dcra web page, id recommend reading up on its history as i believe it contains legitimate evidence for our case(s).
A couple of points I've derived from my perusal of the documents.
Point 1) if the current Governor general was the Patron of the DCRA (which was as we know established as an act of parliament) during which time civilians trained along side the Canadian Forces to develope marksmanship skills, (the mandate of the dcra) using the now prohibited rifles, how can it also be the Governor General's opinion that these rifles are unreasonable for the very types of shooting the DCRA was established to promote? (A requirement for the OIC to have any merit, ie must be the governor in councils opinion that any prohibited thing be, in fact, unreasonable)
Point 2) Also taken from the DCRA website "In 1957 the Canadian Army introduced the FNC1 as the military rifle. DCRA members were entitled to borrow these firearms from DND for competition purposes in the Service Rifle matches".
^ Is it just me or does this not prove that "military style" rifles are valid choices for sporting purposes? I get that this was a while ago, but correct me if im wrong but the DCRA's mandate given to it by an Act of Parliament still exists does it not? As we STILL HAVE service rifle matches.
Sorry for the long essay but I just feel some of this information should be more common knowledge and maybe even included in some of these cases once reviewed by someone alot smarter than me.
|
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Mr Wolverine
