A Message from Matt Hipwell

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yuri_Wolverine

Yuri_Wolverine

New member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Location
Cold and unforgiving Siberian tundra fighting bear

Good morning,

I am shocked by the reaction that came from the vast number of people in the firearms community yesterday. I have been involved in the fight for legal and responsible firearm ownership for over 30 years. It has had an impact on me in more ways than you can count; from Bill C-68 and converted autos being banned, the high-capacity magazine debacle, short barrel handguns, the current OIC and any future amendments.

I have worn a uniform for over half my life and carried a badge for most of those years, and I have argued in support of firearms owners in parliament, before the senate and was one of the first to join the CCFR court challenge. Does this sound like someone who sold out individual firearms owners on April 26th?

Why is the firearms community so divided? Much like our country we come from many different backgrounds and beliefs with different levels of conviction. In the 1990’s it was the military firearm owners who had their firearms banned, while many others stood by and said it won’t happen to me. Then the magazine ban, everyone thought their sport would have exemptions. Short-barrel handguns were next, and these were met with the same answer, but the crowd was getting smaller. Owners asked for consultation with the government - there was none. Next came the OIC, met by many court challenges, including the CCFR one which I am an integral part of.

Owners began to slowly unite; organizations grew in many areas, but there was still missing communication between them all. The (Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association (CSAAA) went to bat for wholesalers, retailers, and manufacturers - whether they were a member or not. There was finally some consultation with the government, and they were commissioned to complete a research survey to those businesses who wanted to participate, regardless of membership. The Liberal government took advantage of this and spewed their own version. As a board member of the CSAAA, we voted on this contract, and we were told as board members that the NFA, Canadian Shooting Sports Association (CSSA) and CCFR were all consulted with. This survey was to determine what non-saleable inventory businesses were sitting on and provide numbers to the government for potential payment. This was a voluntary process for all firearm business licence holders. Yesterday I learned that varying levels of details were disclosed in these consultations. The lack of clear information is now being used against the CSAAA by many. Personally, I am disappointed by the lack of detail provided and by the reaction of many individuals in the firearms community.

When I had a concern with an organization a few years back, I went to that organization and met with them in person to discuss the issues regarding support. I didn’t hide online, and I didn’t speak ill of them. I met with them, and we moved forward together. This organization was the CCFR, and I believe we now work very well together. I have since raised / donated many thousands of dollars in support of individual firearm owners and am part of the CCFR legal challenge for you the firearm owner.

Wolverine Supplies has belonged to the CSSA, the NFA, the CCFR, and the CSAAA over many of our 34 years in business. My father John was the Manitoba President of the NFA for many years, and a director of the CSSA. My sister Danielle was a past board member of the CSAAA. Our family has spent countless hours advocating for your rights to own all types of firearms in Canada. It is disheartening when the moment something goes sideways, the comments that flow in are “I’ll never support them again”, “boycott them”, “only trying to make a quick buck”, the list gets worse and more personal from here. I ask each of you, “What have you done for firearms owners?” If you can honestly say you did everything you could, I congratulate you.

As of today, I am stepping down as a director from the board of the CSAAA, I do not want to muddy the political and legal waters any further.

I am an integral part of the CCFR’s legal challenge and fight for all Canadians’ rights to own firearms. Do I support the option for businesses to be compensated for non-saleable inventory, yes, I do as it sits today. However, this is a decision that may change. This is a decision for each individual business to make, not everyone else. Everyone is in a different financial situation. This compensation must be reasonable in nature, and I have my own questions for the CSAAA and will seek those answers in the weeks ahead.

My continued focus, as always is to support all firearms owners; from the gopher shooter, IPSC competitor, big game hunter, trap shooter, to the next PRS champion. I have a business to run, employees to support and a family to champion and encourage along with trying to find time for some hunting and fishing.

I encourage you to reach out to me with your concerns and as always Wolverine Supplies is here to support you.

Regards,

Matt Hipwell​
 
Wait for the facts and talk to you first? Not how extremists roll. Never miss an opportunity to tear each other apart.

Sorry you caught so much flak over this and it has to suck. Thanks for all you guys have done.
 
IMO it's great you have supported the industry for so long and thank you for that. But all actions have consequences. You can save 20 people from a burning building but if you help light one of those fires after the fact, then that is what people will remember unfortunately. I'm not hiding online I would go to your store and say the same thing in person but I'm several provinces away. An unfortunate series of events but all actions have consequences. And I fear that the long term repercussions of this deal with the libs was not thought out well enough before signing a deal.
 
Mosin_redstar said:
IMO it's great you have supported the industry for so long and thank you for that. But all actions have consequences. You can save 20 people from a burning building but if you help light one of those fires after the fact, then that is what people will remember unfortunately. I'm not hiding online I would go to your store and say the same thing in person but I'm several provinces away. An unfortunate series of events but all actions have consequences. And I fear that the long term repercussions of this deal with the libs was not thought out well enough before signing a deal.
Click to expand...

What's the practical difference between this and if there had been no deal/contract though?

I mean I get the symbolic win for the govt but whats the real world impact vs if this hadn't happened?
 
Thanks for what you and your family have done to support legal, responsible, firearms owners in Canada.

The Liberals have managed to divide the gun community in Canada with this sideshow. When the government renders you unable to use, dispose of, and enjoy your property as you see fit they should reimburse you. https://apple.news/ACbu2UhlCRT61qDh-24HIFQ.

The problem is the proposed changes in the law, the unjust OIC, and the politicization of public safety by the Liberals IMO. Let’s keep our focus on the real problem. Choosing to be reimbursed for property that you cannot sell is hardly unreasonable, immoral, or traitorous. Let’s keep the high ground in this debate and not vilify each other.
 
Joel said:
What's the practical difference between this and if there had been no deal/contract though?

I mean I get the symbolic win for the govt but whats the real world impact vs if this hadn't happened?
Click to expand...

Symbolism is a real world impact.
You might recall this whole thing is political theatre.
 
700-223 said:
The problem is the proposed changes in the law, the unjust OIC, and the politicization of public safety by the Liberals IMO. Choosing to be reimbursed for property that you cannot sell is hardly unreasonable, immoral, or traitorous.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, if reimbursement is not unreasonable then the OIC is not unjust.
You can't suck and blow at the same time.
 
Weak statement. He is part of the reason for the division. All gun owners were lock-step in solidarity for years, and the letter writing campaign helped to withdraw the amendments to C-21. This.....un-intelligent decision by the board of CSAAA sowed the seeds of division.

BTW, is Wolverine Supplies still a member of the CSAAA?
 
Steve_B said:
Symbolism is a real world impact.
You might recall this whole thing is political theatre.
Click to expand...

That's just saying "it will" though. So can we articulate the actual harm that symbolism will cause, besides just saying it does?

How will things now go differently than they would have?

700-223 said:
Thanks for what you and your family have done to support legal, responsible, firearms owners in Canada.

The Liberals have managed to divide the gun community in Canada with this sideshow. When the government renders you unable to use, dispose of, and enjoy your property as you see fit they should reimburse you. https://apple.news/ACbu2UhlCRT61qDh-24HIFQ.

The problem is the proposed changes in the law, the unjust OIC, and the politicization of public safety by the Liberals IMO. Let’s keep our focus on the real problem. Choosing to be reimbursed for property that you cannot sell is hardly unreasonable, immoral, or traitorous. Let’s keep the high ground in this debate and not vilify each other.
Click to expand...

100% agreed but in a place like this where people say worse about each other than the anti gunners say about us? That'll be the day.

More purity tests, groupthink and dogma than I saw amongst the woke kids in Uni.
 
The Liberal government took advantage of this and spewed their own version.
Click to expand...

The CSAAA could turn this around on the liberals through a media campaign of communicating the true cost of such a retailer/wholesaler buyback. They seem to be contracted to come up with dollar figures after all. Gotta make the taxpayers aware and angry enough. That is what ended up killing the long gun registry.
 
Joel said:
That's just saying "it will" though. So can we articulate the actual harm that symbolism will cause, besides just saying it does?

How will things now go differently than they would have?
Click to expand...

First we'd have to know how things would've gone otherwise and how to best quantify the shift in public perception. Not having the measurement of a consequence does not prove there is no consequence.
 
Joel said:
What's the practical difference between this and if there had been no deal/contract though?

I mean I get the symbolic win for the govt but whats the real world impact vs if this hadn't happened?
Click to expand...

By saying "yes I posses x amount of assault style weapons and want money from taxpayers for compensation" What do you think this does for our credibility after we have been arguieing this whole ban is BS? We have been fighting this for so long and to decide all of a sudden with a court case still PENDING! That 3 years is long enough we give up we want our money? The govt can then say hey these people are willing giving these up and gives them a major PR win. Also if they are setting up a price structure for the govt, then they will know exactly what they are worth as appraised by "industry experts". One less step for the libs to do to set up confidcation program. Give the govt and inch and they take a mile. This is a huge step back and risks accelerating the confiscation program. Very short sighted move. Make a deal with the enemy of your customers, what cud go wrong?! This shud have been obvious.
 
It's regrettable that its come down to this, but I see this as little different than returning the merchandise to the distributor. So the Liberals get to brag about this. They are only preaching to the choir. I can't expect businesses to hold inventory they can't sell. I have complete confidence in the Hipwells acting in the best interests of firearms owners. I don't know anyone in Manitoba, or perhaps Canada that has been as outspoken, or better at filling the desires of firearms owners to obtain the best and the coolest of guns, and hosting the best events from IPSC, to pin shoots, running deer shoots, machine gun shoots and Wolverine days. I will continue to buy from them.
 
Mosin_redstar said:
By saying "yes I posses x amount of assault style weapons and want money from taxpayers for compensation" What do you think this does for our credibility after we have been arguieing this whole ban is BS? We have been fighting this for so long and to decide all of a sudden with a court case still PENDING! That 3 years is long enough we give up we want our money? The govt can then say hey these people are willing giving these up and gives them a major PR win. Also if they are setting up a price structure for the govt, then they will know exactly what they are worth as appraised by "industry experts". One less step for the libs to do to set up confidcation program. Give the govt and inch and they take a mile. This is a huge step back and risks accelerating the confiscation program. Very short sighted move. Make a deal with the enemy of your customers, what cud go wrong?! This shud have been obvious.
Click to expand...

So if someone holds a gun to your head and says "give me all your money and I'll give you 10% back, or I'll kill you" you're okay with it if you make sure you really get the 10%? And whose mind, who matters, would such a thing actually change?

The idea that your stuff is going to be stolen anyway, and you still don't like the idea of your stuff being stolen, but in this case you get something back for it, is hardly rocket science.

"Well they took the money for the stuff they were going to lose either way, they must be ok with this!" say all the people who actually make a difference? Like who?

"We give up we want the money"...what? lol. The entire fight was in just saying no to the money?

There was going to be a price list anyway. There was going to be an amount the govt pays per gun anyway. The govt would be saying it was arrived at by "industry experts" anyway...no matter who did it. So again, who's mind changes here that was otherwise not on board with this?

Steve_B said:
First we'd have to know how things would've gone otherwise and how to best quantify the shift in public perception. Not having the measurement of a consequence does not prove there is no consequence.
Click to expand...

Soooooo we cannot even theorize one single likely consequence.

Figured.
 
Joel said:
Wait for the facts and talk to you first? Not how extremists roll. Never miss an opportunity to tear each other apart.

Sorry you caught so much flak over this and it has to suck. Thanks for all you guys have done.
Click to expand...

If it hadn't happen the firearms industry wouldnt be as divided as it is now after that bs move. We would still be in the fight as one cohesive industry, once one pillar caves the whole structure comes tumbling down. The libs knew this and the csaaa played right into it.
 
Mosin_redstar said:
If it hadn't happen the firearms industry wouldnt be as divided as it is now after that bs move. We would still be in the fight as one cohesive industry, once one pillar caves the whole structure comes tumbling down. The libs knew this and the csaaa played right into it.
Click to expand...

They are counting on the firearm owners who are so abused by the Liberals by now that they have complete Stockholm syndrome to such a degree

that they will tolerate, welcome and even demand abuse from just about anyone and as we can see from the sad examples, even defend people who work against their interests.
 
Mosin_redstar said:
If it hadn't happen the firearms industry wouldnt be as divided as it is now after that bs move. We would still be in the fight as one cohesive industry, once one pillar caves the whole structure comes tumbling down. The libs knew this and the csaaa played right into it.
Click to expand...

If we didn't love to dismember our own and roll around in the guts and call for boycotts and call people traitors and....then we wouldnt be so divided anyway.

So the Liberals knew our abysmal nature and lack of community resilience and targeted it? lol.
 
Steve_B said:
Unfortunately, if reimbursement is not unreasonable then the OIC is not unjust.
You can't suck and blow at the same time.
Click to expand...

That’s not how it works. Saying you can’t sell something and refusing to reimburse someone for their losses due to the governments actions are two separate unjust actions. Saying one is only required because of the other does not negate that it would also be wrong not to reimburse people and businesses. Mandatory confiscation without reimbursement is not more just than confiscation without.

In any case, I think the CSAA made a mistake by engaging with the Liberals in good faith is clear. Other than saying they need to be reimbursed for their inventory and their losses IF the court rules the OIC legal is all that should have been said. Lambasting them as traitors who don’t care about the firearms ownership in Canada is incorrect and unhelpful.
 
Joel said:
And whose mind, who matters would such a thing actually change?

The idea that your stuff is going to be stolen anyway, and you still don't like the idea of your stuff being stolen, but in this case you get something back for it, is hardly rocket science.
Click to expand...

I guess that's the difference between you and I. Its called having morals. If somethings is wrong. ITS WRONG. I don't just give up because "they are going to steal it from me anyways". That is the problem with canada right now. Too many spineless people in this country that are willing to take pay out to turn a blind eye.
Have you ever thought of getting into politics? I think you'd fit in real well there.
 
Mosin_redstar said:
Joel said:
And whose mind, who matters would such a thing actually change?

The idea that your stuff is going to be stolen anyway, and you still don't like the idea of your stuff being stolen, but in this case you get something back for it, is hardly rocket science. /
I guess that's the difference between you and I. Its called having morals. If somethings is wrong. ITS WRONG. I don't just give up because "they are going to steal it from me anyways". That is the problem with canada right now. Too many spineless people in this country that are willing to take pay out to turn a blind eye.
Have you ever thought of getting into politics? I think you'd fit in real well there.
Click to expand...

You're the one who can't point out actual harm this causes. I'm asking about the practical harm this causes. I know. Speaking practically without rhetoric is hard.

if your retort is to get on a soap box and preach about how morally superior to everyone else you are, maybe you should run for office. If you're this good at sucking your own d*ck about how much better you are than everyone else you'd fit right in with the Liberals lol.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom