DU damage control email....

Status
Not open for further replies.
If we can have ignorant Toronto ER doctors buying radio airtime that calls for the outright ban on all firearms then we can have DU advocate for our RIGHTS as Canadian citizens.

This is no time to be polite. We are at a critical crossroads in the Canadian timeline that will be the deciding factor if we have liberty and the God given right to protect ourselves in the future or not.
 
I am a lawyer who has worked with charities and nonprofit clients for several years. We may not like it, but my legal opinion is that DU's position is not only reasonable, but mandatory under the CRA guidelines for charities.

There is a very short list of things a charity can do, and if it does anything else it can be stripped of its charitable status and associated tax benefits. The list is this:
relief of poverty
advancement of education
advancement of religion
certain other purposes that benefit the community in a way the courts have said is charitable

Environmental conservation is something falling in the last category, and that's how DU maintains it charitable status. Firearms advocacy has not (as of yet) been seen by courts as a charitable community benefit, and it today's political and media climate, it is exceedingly unlikely that the courts would rule that guns are a community benefit worthy of charitable protection.

Source: https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-ag...red-charity/establishing/what-charitable.html
 
Wow I have heard from both sides here. The negative being the healthy winner. I have to agree. We have placed a lot of money in DU's pocket over the years. With GUN and HUNTING paraphernalia in their organized auctions and dinners. The fancy gold plates and engraving on some of the firearms auctioned caught hunters eyes. But again stated here what was it we were supporting. Maybe they should have been auctioning off pots of SWAMP mud in an engraved pot.

Damn!! Not to run on. But we need to kick them in the pants and pulll all the cash we are giving them. FOR WHAT AGAIN!. I won't be supporting in any way or going to any dinners/auctions after this. I just hope my absence makes some noise!
 
I’m certain they do have the rights you outlined. I’m sure people will each exercise their right to make their own choices regarding where they donate and support with their money as well.
I can also see that if they are allowed to receive funding through placing their trademark on a shotgun without being thought of as supporting an industry not sponsored by the government as a charitable cause, they could probably likewise refuse to support the same industry just as freely.
I don’t know if anyone will intentionally donate to them based on being anti-firearm, but I do know that many will refuse to financially support them based on their anti-firearm ideology. I’m not certain they understand this yet, but maybe they have already calculated the amount of money they receive from us and see it as a loss they can swallow. I don’t know how much they make from selling paintings at our events, or from DU sponsored firearms, or from anything else.
 
climbingrocks said:
I am a lawyer who has worked with charities and nonprofit clients for several years. We may not like it, but my legal opinion is that DU's position is not only reasonable, but mandatory under the CRA guidelines for charities.

There is a very short list of things a charity can do, and if it does anything else it can be stripped of its charitable status and associated tax benefits. The list is this:
relief of poverty
advancement of education
advancement of religion
certain other purposes that benefit the community in a way the courts have said is charitable

Environmental conservation is something falling in the last category, and that's how DU maintains it charitable status. Firearms advocacy has not (as of yet) been seen by courts as a charitable community benefit, and it today's political and media climate, it is exceedingly unlikely that the courts would rule that guns are a community benefit worthy of charitable protection.

Source: https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-ag...red-charity/establishing/what-charitable.html
Click to expand...

Interestingly, it seems charities can support a position that advocates for one side of a party policy while retaining their status. I would argue that MADD Canada uses it's influence in a partisan way while retaining it's status. Now you can say that supporting laws they agree with is in their mandate, so too would supporting legal use of firearms be within the mandate of conserving wetlands to ensure the future use for hunting and other uses.

But I guess that's why lawyers have opinions and courts have decisions.
https://madd.ca/pages/irresponsible...dom-roadside-tests-from-bill-wilson-raybould/
 
dvgunner said:
Wow I have heard from both sides here. The negative being the healthy winner. I have to agree. We have placed a lot of money in DU's pocket over the years. With GUN and HUNTING paraphernalia in their organized auctions and dinners. The fancy gold plates and engraving on some of the firearms auctioned caught hunters eyes. But again stated here what was it we were supporting. Maybe they should have been auctioning off pots of SWAMP mud in an engraved pot.

Damn!! Not to run on. But we need to kick them in the pants and pulll all the cash we are giving them. FOR WHAT AGAIN!. I won't be supporting in any way or going to any dinners/auctions after this. I just hope my absence makes some noise!
Click to expand...

Some people view Ducks Unlimited as a fancy dinner and overpriced auctions. It's a shame you don't get to hunt in Alberta where I can hunt a different DU property every day for three months straight if I wanted to. Everything from partridge to moose.
 
climbingrocks said:
I am a lawyer who has worked with charities and nonprofit clients for several years. We may not like it, but my legal opinion is that DU's position is not only reasonable, but mandatory under the CRA guidelines for charities.

There is a very short list of things a charity can do, and if it does anything else it can be stripped of its charitable status and associated tax benefits. The list is this:
relief of poverty
advancement of education
advancement of religion
certain other purposes that benefit the community in a way the courts have said is charitable

Environmental conservation is something falling in the last category, and that's how DU maintains it charitable status. Firearms advocacy has not (as of yet) been seen by courts as a charitable community benefit, and it today's political and media climate, it is exceedingly unlikely that the courts would rule that guns are a community benefit worthy of charitable protection.

Source: https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-ag...red-charity/establishing/what-charitable.html
Click to expand...
Being asked to post a link to a petition for their members IS NOT making a political statement, and that is all they were asked to do, make their members aware of the petition,, let's just say it's " advancement of education " ffs.
DU could do this and they know they could,,but they have their grubby hands out for government money so they chose their side,, screw DU, they can crash and burn without hunters and sportshooters
 
Buckmastr said:
Some people view Ducks Unlimited as a fancy dinner and overpriced auctions. It's a shame you don't get to hunt in Alberta where I can hunt a different DU property every day for three months straight if I wanted to. Everything from partridge to moose.
Click to expand...

try hunting without a gun.
 
A: DUC does not hold a seat on this committee. Jim Couch is a DUC volunteer who accepted the invitation to join the committee as an individual, not as a representative of DUC. He does not act or report on behalf of DUC in this capacity. His qualifications for the committee (as outlined in his biography) include being a former executive at Potash Corp., a competitive curler, gun club member, retriever club member and DUC volunteer.

So being a member of DU has no bearing on why he is on the committee? The Govt. just picked him out of a hat (ok, maybe they did, it is the Liebs) as a.........what?
 
"DUC can only engage in political activities that further our charitable purpose"

You wont have a charitable purpose if they take guns away from hunters. The migratory bird numbers will explode to the point we are shooting them as "pests" on the golf courses. Duck hunting is a dying discipline in my area, take away a hunters favourite duck gun and hand him a break-action, he is going to say kick rocks and go hunt some upland game instead.
 
like45's said:
A: DUC does not hold a seat on this committee. Jim Couch is a DUC volunteer who accepted the invitation to join the committee as an individual, not as a representative of DUC. He does not act or report on behalf of DUC in this capacity. His qualifications for the committee (as outlined in his biography) include being a former executive at Potash Corp., a competitive curler, gun club member, retriever club member and DUC volunteer.

So being a member of DU has no bearing on why he is on the committee? The Govt. just picked him out of a hat (ok, maybe they did, it is the Liebs) as a.........what?
Click to expand...

As a curler, maybe? ... they apparently needed a curler on the firearms committee. lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom