Please... we need everyones help.. A MUST READ Share with everyone

IRUNGUNS

IRUNGUNS

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Business Member
Rating - 100%
189   0   0
Please share this with everyone including your MP. It is important that this gets out as it has fallen on deaf ears for far to long.


I forwarded this to Andrew Sheer and Jason Kenney this morning.


Dear Andrew Sheer,

By way of proper introduction my name is Jason Lane, I am the president and CEO of IRUNGUNS. I am reaching out to you over the concerns of illegal gun trafficking.

There is a lot more that can be said in a conversation rather then on paper or in an email but not withstanding I will do my best to explain my frustration.

I have been trying for years to fix the current issue at hand.

As you may not be aware my company is located in both the US and Canada and given our company name we do exactly that, we migrate tens of thousands of firearms legally from the US to Canada and back to the US.

I am proud to say my company works hard and we exceed all compliance regulations set forth by every governing agency we deal with.

Over the past two years, I have approached the following individuals with a directive that would correct a good portion of the illegal gun smuggling that is coming into Canada from the US.

Carolyn Androsoff, CBSA
Paul Galveias, Canadian Foreign Affairs
William Etter, SSFS RCMP
And finally, Bill Blair, Safety Minister who didn’t even bother to get back to me.

Prior to doing so, I ensured the full support of the following US Government agencies:

Homeland Security Investigations, HIS
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE
Department of Homeland Security, DHS
US Dept. of State.

I am sure with a quick phone call I can acquire the blessing of the Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, ATF.

I work hand in hand with these US agencies, and the individuals I work with truly care, they are also prepared to help fix the issue.

Everyone in Canada that I reached out to, verbally and via email, with the exception of Bill Blair thought it was an amazing idea.

Although, unfortunately I was advised to stand down given the “higher ups” as it was termed, would have no part of it, change was not in their mandate. No one wanted to take on extra work, the word “complacency” was used. I was also told it was not in anyone’s political agenda given the results would not be immediate
.
I have a way where the Canadian Government can utilize what is currently in place with the blessing and help of the US Government.

In doing so, it will complete the checks and balances needed to address the problem and stop a large portion of illegal gun smuggling. These options are already available, therefore virtually free, I do not understand why we are not taking advantage of it.

The Canadian government has longed for an accurate way of knowing what is being imported into Canada, this will also address that issue.

This is not a marketing ploy, I am concerned and serious about the dilemmas at hand.

I can assure you with great confidence I can give you a path that will address and fix the problem.

Please reach out to me, I need an hour of your time which will make all the difference in the world.

Warmest regards,

Jason Lane
President
IRUNGUNS
 
Last edited:
We would kindly ask for some help in forwarding this, we are literally buried at the moment.

We have complied a dossier with everything, we just need someone to listen. Further gun legislation will do nothing to address or help the current situation.


The IRUNGUNS Team
 
You are working with the assumption that the Government's aim is to stop illegal gun trafficking. It is not. Their aim is to disarm the public and illegal gun trafficking assists in that aim. It creates crime which is used as an excuse to further their agenda. That is why they are not interested.

The same way that police agencies are against marijuana legalisation as it would mean a cut to their powers and budgets. Ditto for banks that get allot of their income from money laundering.

It is good of you to expose their hypocrisy though.
 
Maybe I'm being a little harsh, but this reads like a letter from a Nigerian banker wanting my help to make me rich. It needs a little more meat than what's in it. What's the cure that everyone needs to spread? Seriously though, because we all know we are getting desperate for something.
 
IRUNGUNS said:
We would kindly ask for some help in forwarding this, we are literally buried at the moment.

We have complied a dossier with everything, we just need someone to listen. Further gun legislation will do nothing to address or help the current situation.


The IRUNGUNS Team
Click to expand...


Pls make digitized copies of the dossier.
 
Your correspondence with the "higher ups" not wanting to tackle the real issue because the results take too long is really telling. This government is such a joke. They don't care about public safety, and their voter base is too stupid to realize. Thanks for your hard work Irunguns.
 
Yes, you are most likely right.

But humor me, the people that were advised and contacted oversee their Departments, one in particular was Bill Blair who couldn't even bother to say thank you. The US Government is willing to sit down and look at adapting this as policy in export reform. I also tried to address this as recently as this years Shotshow. Keep in mind things get harder and more complicated because people don't follow the rules and exploit the loop holes. This is one of the reason we find ourselves in this situation.

The liberals rewrote that section of the criminal code in 2015 when they had a majority government. The way they worded it leaves a reasonable doubt, in 117.15 subsection 2 it reads if in the opinion of the governor in council... No where else do they use that wording. Their opinion can be challenged... If that wording wasn't there the only way to overturn this would be a new government. They can not flip a switch and change the law. At least not if we don't challenge it They will have to arbitrate and justify their reasoning for their opinion. That's the crack in the wall.

You would think that the Governor in Council would have consulted with his subordinates and reached out to other governing entities, I'm not positive but we are pretty sure this didn't happen. Notwithstanding, remember in 2018 when the Federal Court of Appeal quashed an order in council that had authorized the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion because the government had failed to properly consult with indigenous groups. The word is properly.

It is a small crack but it is with investigating, at least to us.

Please share the information, we have everything to gain and nothing to loose.


The IRUNGUNS Team








blueskies said:
You are working with the assumption that the Government's aim is to stop illegal gun trafficking. It is not. Their aim is to disarm the public and illegal gun trafficking assists in that aim. It creates crime which is used as an excuse to further their agenda. That is why they are not interested.

The same way that police agencies are against marijuana legalisation as it would mean a cut to their powers and budgets. Ditto for banks that get allot of their income from money laundering.

It is good of you to expose their hypocrisy though.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
blueskies said:
You are working with the assumption that the Government's aim is to stop illegal gun trafficking. It is not. Their aim is to disarm the public and illegal gun trafficking assists in that aim. It creates crime which is used as an excuse to further their agenda. That is why they are not interested.

The same way that police agencies are against marijuana legalisation as it would mean a cut to their powers and budgets. Ditto for banks that get allot of their income from money laundering.

It is good of you to expose their hypocrisy though.
Click to expand...


And if they did listen and actually did somthing about real problems they would use the positive results against legal gun owners. They would claim the better statistics came from the bans they imposed
 
I'll be posting this anywhere the Liberals can be found. They need to know the government they support are redirecting tax payer month towards an issue that can't be resolved with a gun ban, but refuse to discuss viable options.
 
Awesome IRG Team, great post. Bill Bliar's office never returns any emails, even when forwarded from JT's office.


Main reason for all these attacks on the FA community is money/politics.


The scandal behind the gun ban, "Paper Chasers" aka "Money Chasers" and the reason why Bill Blair stated the framework work for the confiscation and ban would take 2 yrs.



The other federal parties can, at any time, depose the Liberal minority government through a non-confidence vote. But they won’t for at least two years. Why? In part, because of parliamentary pensions.

Now that the Liberals are in a minority, the opposition parties control the committees, and Parliament itself, if they work collectively.

They can put before the public the secrets that the Liberals worked so assiduously to hide. Some of the information that former attorney-general Jody Wilson-Raybould and others said they wished to share but were precluded from doing so, could potentially come out. The Liberals can no longer block committee hearings or prevent witnesses from testifying, although they can still invoke cabinet confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege.

Canada Post is right: Defined-benefit pension plans are unaffordable for any employer
If you lie to an employer during hiring, you can be fired. Shouldn’t that apply to Trudeau too?
Liberal moves to legislate work-life balance are voter friendly, but disastrous for business
One might think that the other parties would rush to bring down the Liberal party. After all, they made political mileage over the government’s refusal to release Wilson-Raybould, former Treasury Board president Jane Philpott and others from cabinet confidentiality, despite how anxious witnesses were to tell their stories.

But that was before the election. There are two reasons that they won’t now. The first is that, if the Liberals are totally wiped out by the revelations, the Conservative party will likely get a majority and the NDP and Bloc Quebecois will lose the upper hand in Parliament, with Liberals dependent upon them to enact legislation.

But one should never ignore the impact of a more mundane motivation: pensions.

MPs initially elected in 2015 are not eligible to claim their Parliamentary pension unless they remain in office until at least 2021. This is a defined benefit pension plan, pursuant to the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, which can be received regardless of interest rates or the market.

Such plans used to be relatively common in large private sector employers but they are so expensive that they drove many companies into insolvency. That is why you scarcely find them today outside of the public sector. An analysis by Frederick Vettese, author of the book, Retirement Income for Life: Getting More without Saving More, predicts that defined benefit plans will be extinct in the private sector by 2026 while continuing to grow in the public sector.


One might think it unfair that Parliamentarians receive pensions the vast majority of Canadian employers cannot afford for their own employees. But, for the same reason public sector unions are loath to give them up, Parliamentarians are motivated to ensure that they work the requisite number of years to receive them. That is why they are unlikely to drive the Liberals out of office for at least two years.

In my practice, I have found that employees are loath to leave their jobs before they receive a significant bonus or other potential entitlement. Few MPs are children of privilege or have created significant wealth themselves. So why topple the Liberals and call an election now, before they are guaranteed their pensions?

The traditional private-public sector dichotomy was that public sector employees had better benefits and pensions, enjoyed greater job security, worked less but, in return, earned less. Over the last number of years, that has reversed with public sector workers continuing to enjoy these advantages, particularly the defined benefit pension, but earning more as well.

Why is that? In the private sector, union and non-union alike, market discipline applies. If an employer provides wages that are too high, it goes out of business. Even unions understand that and, in my experience, are open to employers sharing their financial statements and modifying their demands to ensure their members keep their jobs.

In the public sector, market discipline does not apply. The government simply runs a deficit. Moreover, the people negotiating on the other side of the unions are directed by politicians whose main goal is to avoid a strike “on their watch.” The politicians simply defer the consequences of their lavish public sector benefits/pensions and the resulting deficits to later years.

Howard Levitt is senior partner of Levitt LLP, employment and labour lawyers. He practises employment law in eight provinces. The most recent of his six books is Law of Dismissal in Canada
 
Humor me, the people that were advised and contacted oversee their Departments, one in particular was Bill Blair who couldn't even bother to say thank you. The US Government is willing to sit down and look at adapting this as policy in export reform. I also tried to address this as recently as this years Shotshow. Keep in mind things get harder and more complicated because people don't follow the rules and exploit the loop holes. This is one of the reason we find ourselves in this situation.

The liberals rewrote that section of the criminal code in 2015 when they had a majority government. The way they worded it leaves a reasonable doubt, in 117.15 subsection 2 it reads if in the opinion of the governor in council... No where else do they use that wording. Their opinion can be challenged... If that wording wasn't there the only way to overturn this would be a new government. They can not flip a switch and change the law. At least not if we don't challenge it.

They will have to arbitrate and justify their reasoning for their opinion. That's the crack in the wall.

You would think that the Governor in Council would have consulted with his subordinates and reached out to other governing entities, I'm not positive but we are pretty sure this didn't happen. Notwithstanding, remember in 2018 when the Federal Court of Appeal quashed an order in council that had authorized the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion because the government had failed to properly consult with indigenous groups. The word is properly.

It is a small crack but it is with investigating, at least to us.

Please share the information, we have everything to gain and nothing to loose.


You want to fight the Government we need to do it together.


The IRUNGUNS Team
 
Last edited:
Kudos, but you buried the lead. Right after you introduce yourself, tell them what you have to offer them, then tell them how.

Thanks for your support, we love IRG
 
We have already shared everything with those people who oversee these Canadian departments... that is the problem. Posting a flow chart and documents on line will not help anyone if they don't understand the internal workings of exporting defense products.

The issue I am trying to get across is the US Government acknowledged and agreed with the the proposal, this was also outlined to the RCMP. Canadian Foreign Affairs and CBSA in the original correspondence. The first hurtle was to get the US Government to agree, the Canadian Government couldn't even be bothered to entertain the idea.

We should not be where we are today if people would get off their ass. The US has implemented all sorts of changes to combat this and other problems, its called export reform.


We acknowledge their is a problem, we have a course of action that was good enough for the US to stand up and take note but it takes both countries unified for it to work.

Everyone thinks the quick fix is to take away guns, that is not the answer.













Mauser GDog said:
Kudos, but you buried the lead. Right after you introduce yourself, tell them what you have to offer them, then tell them how.

Thanks for your support, we love IRG
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
1ABNDT said:
<br>
[...]
The other federal parties can, at any time, depose the Liberal minority government through a non-confidence vote. But they won’t for at least two years. Why? In part, because of parliamentary pensions.
[...]
There are two reasons that they won’t now. The first is that, if the Liberals are totally wiped out by the revelations, the Conservative party will likely get a majority and the NDP and Bloc Quebecois will lose the upper hand in Parliament, with Liberals dependent upon them to enact legislation.

But one should never ignore the impact of a more mundane motivation: pensions.

[...]
The politicians simply defer the consequences of their lavish public sector benefits/pensions and the resulting deficits to later years.
Click to expand...

5242 posts in one year (~15/day) is impressive @1ABNDT. I hope, however, that I'm not replying to troll bait, as would be my expectation on any other board with that volume of posts, but I'm too lazy to investigate first. I also don't know if this is a post from Howard or if he is being referenced; if it's Howard, well, hey Howard, what's up?


I don't understand the union bashing in this post, and frankly we can put it aside as irrelevant. What I appreciate about the post is the insight into the separable interests of the individual MP's from their party interests and loyalties. I've been having this debate with my sons and daughters of late as well.


I don't disagree that individual MP interest in their own pensions is a factor that cannot be ignored, and it is a factor that tends to solidify their party loyalties under normal operations. However, I would suggest that this is a radical action on the Liberal party's part, and that in this light, the self-interest of MP's can be leveraged in a more democratic manner.


MP's can hide behind party lines most of the time, but when a local or regional issue puts party lines against the interest of the people they represent, we must never forget the electorate didn't elect JT as PM, they elected there local MP, and that is where the power of Canadian democracy lies. Rely on your local MP's self interest, an strong interest to stay employed and a much lesser but still important interest to be liked during and after they serve in office. Let your local MP know, especially if they are Liberal or NDP, that if they do not vote against this government in a non-confidence motion and force an election, you will you personally will help organize firearm owners as well as those others who believe in the values of democracy and parliamentary accountability to ensure that they are not re-elected to their current office.


The threat of losing their seat as an MP because of a locally organized and mobilized campaign against them will give them considerable pause. Then, if they don't, make sure you do put them out of office. Party whip politics and party interest always takes a back seat to individual MP self-interest.


There are enough firearm enthusiasts in this country to change the outcome of the next election. Whatever else we might disagree about, every rational legal firearms owner knows this OIC is wrong, and that this government must be replace, so let's make this our first objective. Think nationally, and start mobilizing locally.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom