Open Letter to Ducks Unlimited

Jay said:
I believe you're wrong Vewdu.

By actively holding a seat on the Firearms Advisory Committee, Ducks Unlimited openly lends credibility to whatever the fed gov decides to do to law abiding gun owners... Ask yourself what most Canadians would say if they were asked what DU's role was on the Committee? I think most would say that DU is there to represent duck hunters and firearms owners... Heck, look at the shocked members responses here, and they are involved in the shooting sports...

If DU wants to focus on conservation and stay out of politics & gun issues, that's fine, but then don't put your name on guns, sell a gun calendar and other gun related merchandise, all while NOT lending support to gun owners.

Bottom line, if they are as they claim, a group purely focused on conservation, then they should not sit on the Firearms Advisory Committee. They should step down!
Click to expand...

this guy hit the nail right on the head,Ducks Unlimited is NOTHING without guns,so they are there to help us or NOT,,up to them,but they can't come crying when memberships money starts to drop like a stone,which WILL happen you they decide NOT to help.
 
Davidkjs1 said:
She just commented on ccfr page that she did speak with them. I asked what their position was and crickets
Click to expand...

I'm disappointed with Tracy for not commenting about her conversation other than she spoke with someone at DU. It appears she has passed the info to Matt @ Wolverine.
 
Be careful with the FUDD comment! You don’t need to alienate anybody at this time in the 11th hour! Right around 50 a lot of men have the family thing sorted out and now have some extra cash to afford all of the nice things they have seen their entire life and start to make things like that happen!

I for one had not been to a ducks Unlimited event for a very long time but my wife started working for a new company and they took their entire staff and their spouses to a ducks Unlimited event in my Northeast Saskatchewan town for their company Christmas party! It was a very nice gesture and a very nice evening but everything there was outdoors and/or hunting and firearm related! That is how ducks Unlimited generates a lot of funds! By selling, auctioning and raffling off all the goodies that hunters, sport shooters and fisherman genuinely enjoy using in the outdoors, that’s their main bank roll I believe other than memberships. As hunters and shooters we feel this is an organization that is with us so we choose to support it not knowing that they will talk tail and run!
As for staying neutral as some organizations probably should, all ducks Unlimited had to do was pass the information off to their members and let their members decide for themselves! Something that our government can’t seem to do and now seems to think they know what’s best for everyone!

Personally, I for one will not be supporting ducks Unlimited again just for this reason of them not supporting our community, where most of their bread and butter comes from
 
So DU always has their hand out to gun owners for our support, but wants to “remain neutral” over a petition asking for democratic process in stripping their support base of firearms.

FU DU. I’ll find someone else to donate too this year.
 
You can hunt big game with out a firearm (bow hunting) but it is pretty hard to hunt waterfowl without a shotgun. While I get that they are concentrating on conservation, hunters play a massive part in that and they should at least acknowledge that fact.
 
Vewdu said:
This has everything to do with that. No company in their right mind that doesn't explicitly have anything to do with firearms ownership in Canada is going to play sides and get dragged into this mess. Let alone a conservation company that specializes in wetlands and ducks.

It is absolutely a fight, democracy is taking place, people are sending letters, calling their reps. We are fighting for our ability to maintain ownership of certain kinds of firearms.

We live in Canada, not America, bud. Firearm ownership isn't protected like the second amendment.
Click to expand...

Yes it is -- going all the way back to English Common Law. There are plenty of legal arguments for self defense. A judge recently let a gangster off for killing a guy with an illegal gun, citing Right to self defense.
 
What percentage of duck hunters use semi-automatic shotguns?

Am I wrong to assume it's at least 50% of them?

Shouldn't they be concerned about having those guns prohibited?
 
I will never throw a friggin penny ever again towards DU. I'll make sure to tell everyone I know. My family business deals with farmers everyday!!!
 
The OFAH organization is no better after emailing them several times before and after Christmas asking them if they could join the fight by informing there members or posting the petition to there site. All I got was directed to this,


https ://www.ofah.org/2019/12/government-targets-lawful-canadian-firearm-owners/
 
Ribstaylor said:
They did have a post but have scrubbed it from all their social media, and actively sent out an internal email saying they are staying neutral while sitting on the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee.
Click to expand...

If that's what they're saying, it's misconceived. If I understand this correctly, an individual holding a position with DUC may also have an appointment to the federal Firearms Advisory C'tee. So what. That doesn't mean that DUC itself has any obligation to the Firearms C'tee whatsoever. The individual's first duty is to DUC. He should execute that responsibility to DUC without regard to his membership of the Firearms C'tee. If there's a conflict between those roles, he should resign from one or the other. His membership of the Firearms C'tee should not be allowed to influence his actions as an employee of DUC, much less the positions taken by that organization. This is elementary.
 
Dexter Morgan said:
What percentage of duck hunters use semi-automatic shotguns?

Am I wrong to assume it's at least 50% of them?

Shouldn't they be concerned about having those guns prohibited?
Click to expand...

I am in sask
Everyone i know who hunts bird every single one of them
Hunt with a semi auto
I dont know anyone who doesn't
50% is low in this province
Every septic tank who comes here hunts with a semiauto
 
Vewdu said:
This has everything to do with that. No company in their right mind that doesn't explicitly have anything to do with firearms ownership in Canada is going to play sides and get dragged into this mess. Let alone a conservation company that specializes in wetlands and ducks.

It is absolutely a fight, democracy is taking place, people are sending letters, calling their reps. We are fighting for our ability to maintain ownership of certain kinds of firearms.

We live in Canada, not America, bud. Firearm ownership isn't protected like the second amendment.
Click to expand...
What firearms would fall under the term “ certain types of firearms “ ?
 
Vewdu said:
This has everything to do with that. No company in their right mind that doesn't explicitly have anything to do with firearms ownership in Canada is going to play sides and get dragged into this mess. Let alone a conservation company that specializes in wetlands and ducks.

It is absolutely a fight, democracy is taking place, people are sending letters, calling their reps. We are fighting for our ability to maintain ownership of certain kinds of firearms.

We live in Canada, not America, bud. Firearm ownership isn't protected like the second amendment.
Click to expand...



Really! Why don't you brush up.


The Legal basis for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Canada.

Many Canadians believe (and our government would certainly have us believe) that there is no Right of the citizen to keep arms for their own use and defense, like the US Second Amendment, in Canadian law.

To those citizens, I would suggest a bit of reading up on our own history and legal framework.

Our right to bear arms is not mentioned in recent documents such as the Constitution or Charter because it's already stated elsewhere in Canadian law.


We have this Right, though our government is attempting to suppress it and deny citizen's their age-old right to self-defense with the egregious and unconstitutional (not to mention horrendously expensive) Firearms Act and other proposals. It leads one to wonder why the government so wants an unarmed and defenceless populace.


Our right to keep and bear arms in our own or the country's defense comes from exactly the same place as the American one -- English Common Law, the English Bill of Rights 1689, the writings of Sir William Blackstone in his Commentaries on English Law, and others. All these laws (and indeed the full body of English Law), became part of Canadian law on our Confederation in 1867 with the affirmation of the British North America (BNA) Act.



The Canadian Right to Bear Arms

The common law right to bear arms has existed for at least 300 years in Anglo-Canadian law. Although it may have had its origins even earlier,42 the first explicit recognition of this right appears in the English Bill of Rights (1689), designed by Parliament to constrain the power of the new King after the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Article VII of this document states:

That the subjects which are Protestant may have arms for their defence, suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law.

Article VII thus indicates that Protestants in Great Britain enjoyed the right to bear arms, subject to certain restrictions placed upon the right by Parliament, restrictions that were usually related to class. The right to bear arms was so fundamental to the British constitutional system that in the next century Sir William Blackstone, the celebrated author of the Commentaries on the Laws of England, included this right among the five most fundamental auxiliary rights of British subjects, including such fundamental tenets as Parliamentary supremacy and the right of subjects to seek redress for grievances in courts of law. Blackstone laid out the right to bear arms as follows:

The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. st. 2. c. 2 (the English Bill Of Rights), and it is indeed, a public allowance under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

Although this right has been regulated in various ways since its promulgation, it remains part of one of the most important legal instruments in British constitutional history. This right was passed down to Canada through the preamble of the British North America Act (1867) which grants Canada “a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom,” a phrase which transfers to and entrenches the British common law legacy in Canada - including the right to keep arms.

A counter argument has been made to the claim that there is a right to own firearms in Canada by Lois G. Schwoerer. Schwoerer argues that Article VII in the 1688 English Bill of Rights did nothing more than grant Britons a communal right to self-defence; the right of the British to have an armed militia for the common defence of their territory. According to Schwoerer, Article VII did not grant individuals a right to own firearms for self-protection, and there is no common law foundation for such a right.43

Joyce Malcolm effectively rebuts Schwoerer’s evidence. Malcolm points out that many of the drafters of the English Bill of Rights were lawyers who knew the importance of draftsmanship and statutory interpretation. Such people would undoubtedly have included a reference to a common or communal right to bear arms if they had intended it not to apply strictly to individuals. As well, farmers of the American Bill of Rights, basing their document on its British ancestor, included a right for individuals to bear arms in their document, so sure were they that their citizens had enjoyed a right to bear arms under British rule:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Malcolm buttresses her position with several British precedents. In R. v. Gardner 93 E.R. 1056, it was ruled that the keeping of a gun for self-defence was a legal and permissible act in England, provided that it was not used for unlawful purposes (in this case, for hunting, an activity prohibited to members of the lower class such as the accused). In Wingfield v. Stratford and Osman 96 E.R. 787, a similar ruling was made confirming the right of individuals to bear arms for their self-defence.

The right to bear arms is not absolute, and has been subject to regulation by law since at least the time of the Glorious Revolution. Regulation, however, does not extinguish this right. In R. v. Sparrow [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075 the Supreme Court affirmed that regulation of an aboriginal right does not automatically extinguish the right. Mutatis mutandi, the same logic applies to section 26 rights such as the right to bear arms.

Indeed, the historical right of the descendants of European settlers to bear arms can be no less than the right of Aboriginal Canadians to possess firearms, since the latter only acquired firearms with the arrival of the former. It can hardly be maintained that there is an Aboriginal right to bear arms but not a similar right for non-Aboriginals, when it was European settlers who first brought firearms to North American and its Aboriginal inhabitants. The right to bear arms is thus a historical right of all Canadians, and this right is affirmed and extended by section 26 of the Charter.

A right that has been entrenched in constitutional and quasi-constitutional documents for three centuries, recognized in judicial interpretation, and accorded constitutional pre-eminence by one of the most renowned commentators on British law, is protected in Canada through section 26 of the Charter. Since the Firearms Act prohibits the mere possession of a firearm—even for purposes of self-defense in one’s own home—it restricts this right. Given the intimate connection between the right of self-defense and to rights to life, liberty and security of the person protected by section 7 of the Charter, the state must justify its restriction of this right according to the strict tests mandated by the Oakes precedent.
 
Classic Canada vs American mentality at play with Ducks Unlimited.

Here is the US DU statement.

DU strongly supports the right to bear arms and believes that with that right comes a responsibility to use firearms lawfully and safely. The ownership and use of firearms is intertwined with wildlife management and conservation in North America, and we strongly support hunting. Without hunters and recreational shooters and their financial contributions through hunting licenses and excise taxes on sporting arms, national conservation funding would be decimated.

We will continue to hold ourselves to the highest standards of gun safety, hunting ethics, and responsible firearms ownership and use.
 
Ducks Unlimited does not care.

#CCFRenfrancais

Lately, there has been an incredible awareness movement from all members of our community.

From different national gun organizations, Provincial Wildlife Associations, retailers to hunting associations and to individuals, we were all united in an effort to demand the government to respect the appropriate parliamentary process.
The Liberal Government's plan to ban semi-automatic weapons using an order is anti-Democratic and frankly anti-Canadian.

We have reached out to our precious friends and defense partners all over the country to ask them to send a united message.

All answered the call, except one.

Last week ducks unlimited Canada leaders met with our vice president of public relations, Tracey Wilson.
She simply asked them to share and spread the petition www.e2341.ca, but she was told resolutely that ducks unlimited Canada does not defend the possession of guns, hunting and that it is an organization strictly dedicated to the Conservation of wet areas.

In recent years, Tracey has been one of the speakers invited at unlimited Canada fundraising, working on our common cause; she was shocked by their refusal to defend Canadian gun hunters and gun owners .

We share many members with unlimited ducks from coast to coast and beg them to unite with the whole community and respond to this simple request.

It's not too late to help. ������ ������
Click to expand...

From the CCFRs facebook page.

They don't care. At all.

Let them know with your wallet. Don't support those that do not support you.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom