so by keeping the site sponsors that supported CSAAA it seems to me that CGN also supports them as well - I read that site sponsors were kicked off the site for far less? Just trying to line up my ducks in a row.
Who says CSAAA is a non profit org ? Hard to argue they are when ALLL of them are in business .
And consider the $700K contract…
The Board - including Wes - negotiated that contract - they are fully liable for it.
If it was done without consulting their membership - the members just have to get the board out and elect another one that will have the brain to cancel it.
The mess the CSAAA created belongs to the CSAAA alone and it is on them to deal with the repercussions they created.
As far as banners on CGN go, (I can only assume as we as Mods have nothing to do with the business end) I imagine there are contracts and conditions WRT to having a banner on CGN.
The decision the CSAAA made was done in the CSAAA's name and not in Epp's name so if CGN members have an issue with the businesses represented by the CSAAA that are in support of their recent contract with the govt they should take it up with that business. The entire fiasco has NOTHING to do with CGN.
Even non profits have to pay people for their time, have to pay for property. None of the board of directors are paid for anything. But if you are highering people they get paid. A non profit just doesnt aim to make a profit.
Anything voted on would be brought to the voting members attention for them to look over. It is voted on, and the director/president is bound by the way the vote goes. The director/president generally doesnt vote unless there is a tie.
Everything you said is correct but has no relevance to what happened. Some board members made a secret deal with Mendocino’s office, signed a NDA to that agreement and brought it to a vote. It didn’t pass on the first vote so after more discussion it passed another vote unanimously.
It appears that not all on the board knew of all the details of the NDA and resigned afterwards. Or maybe they did know more that they’re saying but resigned to save face, who knows.
The bottom line is Mendocino has proudly stated that he’s very pleased that the CSAAA have partnered up with the government to go ahead with the gun confiscation program which is more than a bit of a problem with most of us.
The problem of course. Is going along with this is totaly voluntary to the businesses involved. Has nothing to do with the individuals only businesses (including distributors) busineses really have no options here.
The last one they told the government to go take a flying fck at a rolling doughnut on was the walther g22 bullpup 22lr. They told the govt to pound sand.. the next week they found all their import permits canceled.
It might be voluntary to the businesses involved but the contract calls for the CSAAA to report a business as non voluntarily complying.
Yes, this is a business issue only (for now) but the big issue is the CSAAA made the gun ban and confiscation legitimacy in the eyes of the government and Mendocino made that clear that this agreement was a first step in the total confiscation program. We all know what that means.
If the CSAAA though that their agreement with the devil would only affect them and their members, they were extremely short sighted. As Mendocino stated, this was the first step.
There’s a board member that voted for this plan which actually gives legitimacy to the buyback and confiscation program while at the same time his father is fighting in the courts to argue non legitimacy of the gun ban and confiscation program. Certainly makes one wonder…
No. They are just saying who is complying. The government has a list of businesses since they give the licensing out. They are giving the govt a list of those businesses that want to go along with it. They arent telling the govt who isnt complying. The government would know either way.
And having delt with other businesses, it is very true that a lot of firearms businesses honestly havent a clue what they have in stock.
As for the legal battles. Not to be a naysayer, but with the judges bought and paid for by the liberal government, we know how the legal challenges are going to go. Look at any of the fights against them in the ladt 2 years. Especially the trucker convoy and the emergency act use.
We were a member up until the morning this came out (like most commercial firearms related businesses in Canada)
We were blindsided - we actually had a customer who worked here a few years ago tell us what was happening. We were never consulted or informed about what was going on and its seems this collaboration started many months ago.
We are totally against any collaboration with any government who is attempting to confiscate any legally owned firearms from Canadian citizens.
That is the position of PR. Please feel free to post here or PM if further clarification is required.
ive read the Tasks. and im not seeing what you are talking about honestly. i see the csaaa will be provided with a list of all distributors/ manufacturers/ and stores by the government for them to contact. and that the csaaa will submit completed inventories to the government. other than that. i dont see where it says they will snitch on those that dont wish to take part. if you can provide me with the section that is stated in.
For those of us that aren't on here very day, what have they done? They are my local gun store so curious.
4.6.3 The Contractor must follow up with non-responsive businesses and those having submitted
incomplete data. The Contractor must provide the PA information on unresponsive
businesses as part of the bi-weekly Inventory Report
So.. they have to say they havent heard anything from them. Doesnt say they have to say they arent complying. Just they arent communicating with the csaaa... thats all it legally says there. Thats all they are legally bound to do.
Yeah. Businesses that don't respond to the communication or submit incomplete data are non-compliant. And the CSAAA's job is to report them.
That's called being a snitch!
Also, Wes originally said that this agreement the CSAAA had with the Libs was to involve only voluntary participation of retailers.
If the CSAAA is snitching on non-compliant businesses, participation hardly seems voluntary
The government is giving them a list of all businesses to contact. The government kniws who all the business is. You act like the government doesnt know where all the businesses are.
They dont need to say they arent compliant. They say they havent got ahold of them. Doesnt mean #### other than that they havent got in contact with them.
The only way the Gov would know all the businesses to even "create a list", is to ask the people who have the list in the first place. The CSAAA .
The government doesn't know S without them, If they did they wouldn't need the CSAAA