Fellas,
I recieved an unsolicited call from the NB CFO (Brian Doyle) this afternoon at work. The call was in regards to 2 x SAP applications that I submitted by mail approximately a week ago. One was for my use at the local range, and the other was a "single use" request for the Maritimes CGN Shoot in May.
Anticipating that the 12(3) "converted-auto" debacle would not be addressed prior to the May CGN shoot, my SAP application for that shoot listed only my 12(4) and 12(5) factory semi-auto firearms.
Before I carry on, I must note that the NB CFO (Mr Doyle) and his staff are the best that a firearms owner could possibly hope for in terms of bureaucrats charged with enacting horribly unpopular legislation and regulations. Mr Doyle is a self-admitted "functionary" with minimal personal knowledge of firearms. Having said that, he strikes me as a very objective and fair man. Certainly, I have been far better served by Mr. Doyle and his CFO staff here in NB than I EVER was in Alberta under the draconian, self-serving, and completely pompous-ass dictates of Morris Sawchuck. The NB CFO, ably assisted by his #2 (who is a competitive shooter) has done everything within his limited powers to ensure that NB firearms owners are well-served within the constraints of the Firearms Act and the ever-tightening "noose" imposed upon us by his superiors. At the end of the day, Mr Doyle is a well-intentioned bureaucrat caught between a rock (his common sense which tends towards our cause) and a hard place (his job-preservation requirement to enforce increasingly draconian and utterly senseless legislation). I could go on, but I suspect that you get the picture. The very few rare CFOs who actually maintain and objective and fair point of view are not our enemy. I hold no ill-will towards Mr Doyle, nor his PEI and NS counterparts. I have good reason to believe that they are quietly supportive of our cause, but cannot say so at the risk of censure or job loss. So what else is new?
Anyhow, on to the meat of our conversation this afternoon. It was quite revealing, yet at the same time quite disheartening. Read on.
- Mr Doyle informed me that no SAPs could/would be issued with validity past the date of 10 April. This direction was received from the CFC, based on the pending 10 April "coming into force" of the amendments to the FA enacted by the amended version of Bill C10A. You may recall that the original C10A contained a "streamlining" provision whereby the SAP would be eliminated in favour of allowing all prohibited firearms to be transported on an ATT. The original intent being that (on the observation of the CFOs), there was nothing to be gained by the separate processing of SAPs for prohibited long-guns. As Mr Doyle related from one of his earlier CFO/CFC gatherings, the consensus was that there was no discernable benefit to the SAP process, given that all of the firearms in question were duly registered and legally owned. Apparently, the desire expressed by common-sense CFOs such as Mr Doyle to eliminate the separate SAP requirement for prohib long-guns was perverted by the "anti" faction within the bureaucracy to imply that no permits whatsoever ought to be issued for those firearms.
- My Doyle readily agreed to my request for a formal, written refusal of my May SAP application. He clearly knew what was coming next. I asked that he quote the relevant legislation and the reasons for the refusal. Mr Doyle agreed to do this, and offered to include all of the relevant information that I would require to initiate a Review Hearing. He went on to explain the process, and when I informed him that I would not be able to attend court before the end of May due to my military commitments, he was kind enough to tell me that I should advise the courts of this fact when lodging my request for a Refusal Review.
- During the course of our conversation Mr Doyle was VERY careful with his wording. As you might expect, given his position between a "rock and a hard place". Nonetheless, he indicated to me that the Refusal Hearing would likely be a wasted effort given the stated (on his net) intent of the Federal Government to legislatively remove the SAP provisions of the Firearms Act as the next order of business following the 10 April "coming into force" of C10A. In other words, the "grabbers" within the Federal Government are one step ahead of us, and fully intend to legislatively remove our "illusory permit" argument against the C10A amendments and resultant SAP denial before we can even fight it on those grounds. Notwithstanding that revelation, Mr Doyle was "neutrally supportive" of my right to a refusal hearing.
- We got into a bit of a conversation about the perceived intent of the C10A-imposed restrictions vis-a-vis the continued legitimate ownership of prohib long-guns. Mr Doyle was admirably candid, and provided some interesting insight into the various CFO working groups that he attends. First and foremost, I can state with reasonable certainty that not all CFOs are in agreement with Ottawa's dictates. The "common sense" CFOs are not utter fools, nor are they necessarily "anti's". They are simply people who find themselves in an increasingly uncomfortable government job, where their ethics are progressively in conflict with the utterly meaningless and irrational "anti-gun" dicates received from "on high".
- The NB CFO stated that in his view, the factory semi-auto 12(4) and 12(5) firearms are no different than any semi-automatic hunting rifle. In his view, they ought to be restricted firearms, and the SAP process never made any sense. As an aside, this ought to be a BIG wake-up call for those who own semi-auto commercial hunting firearms. If there is no perceived difference, then guess who/what is next on the chopping block?????
- The NB CFO admitted that the minority of the RFC who own prohib long-guns are being deliberately targetted by the Federal "anti's" because the government knows that they can get away with it. The "divide and conquer" strategy that we have long suspected against the fragmented Canadian RFC is now 100% confirmed. Interesting, no?
- I asked the NB CFO to explain the rationale for suddenly denying the continued legitimate use of duly-registered firearms by their demonstrably law-abiding citizen owners. He had no answer. The bottom line is that there is NO justification whatsoever for this latest attack on the recreational use of lawful firearms. The Federal "antis" are attacking us simply because they believe that they can get away with it.
- The NB CFO told me straight out (measuring his words VERY carefully) that it was his personal belief that the goal of the Federal government was to remove prohibited firearms from the hands of the Canadian public within a generation, and the sooner the better. Hence (my interpretation) the incremental "tightening of the noose".
- The NB CFO advised me that because the owners of 12(3), 12(4) and 12(5) firearms will no longer be able to legally "discharge" those particular firearms, the reasons for owning them will be reduced to "Collecting". As such, I was informed that when my PAL comes up for renewal I will be told that I have two choices. On the one hand, I can register myself as "bona-fide" collector and subject myself to the additional "adminstrative hoops" and "privacy concessions" associated with that status so that I can continue to wipe the dust off of of firearms that I can never use for their intended purpose. On the other hand, I can refuse to register as a "collector" and will therefore lose my 12(3), 12(4) and/or 12(5) status based on the fact that as a "non-collector" I have no further legitimate use for those firearms. At which point they will (presumably) be seized. Nice, eh?
There was probably more, but the above observations reflect the essence of my very polite and non-confrontational conversation with the NB CFO this afternoon. Suffice it to say that the intent and short-term action plan of the federal "antis" is now abundantly clear. The enactment of Bill C10A reflects a full-scale assault on the "status quo" and essentially leaves the grandfathered owners of military-style long-guns completely "high and dry". We are an easy target as a minority within the RFC, and we are therefore under full-scale attack. The writing is clearly on the wall for whichever segment of the RFC that the federal "anti's" choose to attack next. My guess (based on the NB CFO's analogy that there is no difference between a semi-auto FN FAL and a semi-auto hunting rifle) is that the large-bore commercial semi-autos will be next on the chopping block.
Our worst fears are now realized. The federal "grabbers" are aggressively advancing their agenda (again), and the owners of prohibited firearms are the first target. The next logical target (in the absence of anything more "scary") are other subsets of the recreational firearms community. Starting with the commercial semi-autos. If I happened to own a Remington auto-loader or a self-loading shotgun, I would be VERY nervous. No, strike that. I would be absolutely furious knowing full-well based on current precedent what the federal government intends for my hunting guns.....
The luxury of "Playing Ostrich" has long since passed for those who were so inclined. We now have irrefutable proof that the current federal government fully intends to disarm the Canadian public through enforced confiscation. So the only meaningful question is whether you will personally play the role of a sheep and surrender your rights, or be a wolf and legally fight this horrifically unjustified attack upon your person freedoms.
Many of us have talked about the "what if/worst-case" situation before. Well, I am here to tell you that it is quite suddenly "here and now". If "they" get away with attacking the prohibited long-gun owners, then everyone else is unquestionably fair game. Acquiescence by the firearms community and sacrifice of the minority prohibited owners will simply embolden the "antis" and infuse them with a renewed zeal for the elimination of ALL private firearms ownership. And if you can't clearly see that, well then you don't deserve to own a butter-knife let alone a firearm.
In the final analysis, this latest attack upon law-abiding and fully-compliant firearms owners is nothing short of a fundamental “breach of trust” by the federal government. It lies bare the utter falsity of their publicly-stated intention to “work with the recreational firearms community” in the interests of the common good and overall fiscal responsibility. Furthermore, it now abundantly clear why the common-sense and conciliatory recommendations resulting from the recent study by an impartial Federal appointee were withheld under Parliamentary secrecy. Those recommendations quite evidently contradicted the draconian legislative wheels which were already in motion. The “anti-gun” policy wonks evidently didn’t like what they heard from an impartial investigation (of their own appointment), so they promptly buried the results and carried on with their established agenda.
Never in my life, have I felt so utterly disregarded and duped. As a member of the Canadian Forces who has willingly gone into harm’s way in the active defence of our nation, I feel utterly betrayed. I have never voiced (nor felt) that sentiment before, but this time it is for real. I am incredibly disillusioned by this latest turn of events. In my “alter” role as a taxpaying Canadian civilian, I am completely disillusioned by this latest attack upon my legitimate and law-abiding recreational pursuits. Suffice it to say that I have lost any and all faith in our national government to “do the right thing”, now understanding that our governance is the purview of mandarins with a long-established (and apparently unassailable) agenda of socialist subjugation. Is it “tin-foil hat” time? Perhaps, but give the latest developments I honestly don’t think that my observations are anywhere close to the fringe. Despite my current profession, this Canadian government does NOT represent my personal interests. Nor do I believe that its policies represent the desires of the majority. They are blindly enacting a naïve liberal “road-map” to purported national peace and security which has long since been refuted by reality. And people like me are the ones paying the completely unjustified price.
The NB CFO has readily agreed to provide me with a formal SAP refusal letter, along with instructions for launching my request for a review. I will post the details just as soon as I receive them.
These are dark days for Canadian firearms owners, but I for one refuse to surrender my current rights without a concerted fight. If I were a million-dollar Lotto winner I would happily fund a $100,000 court challenge. Unfortunately, I am a family man of modest means. As are most of us, which the opposition knows and fully counts on. Still, I will pursue all available and affordable means to fight this completely unwarranted attack upon my rights and my personal property. Starting with the Refusal Review Hearing. Enough is enough. I am utterly sick and bone-tired of adhering to the ever more draconian laws of the land, only to be bent over and arse-raped despite my previous compliance. How many times do I have to say it? I AM NOT, NOR HAVE I EVER BEEN, THE PROBLEM!!!! SO STOP SCREWING ME AROUND!!!!!!!!!!!!
As a final point, can anyone confirm or deny the use of duly-registered 12(2), 12(3), 12(4), or 12(5) firearms in a single violent crime in Canada? I strongly suspect that no such crimes have ever occurred, otherwise we would have heard all about it. It seems to me that this would be a very powerful "speaking point" to demonstrate the utter folly and abject pointlessness of this latest attack upon lawful firearms owners. If there is zero correlation to a single act of criminal violence with registered prohib long-guns, then one must ask just what the point/purpose is of the latest restriction placed on the recreational use of duly-registered and lawfully owned prohib firearms?
I for one, would like to bring this particular point to the attention of the judge presiding over my forthcoming "Refusal Hearing". At the end of the day, we need to demonstrate that there is zero quantifiable reason for this latest attack on the use of our legally-acquired and duly registered firearms. I can refute the "no sporting purpose" argument quite well all on my lonesome, by swearing under oath that I have hunted and take wild game with various formerly non-restricted (but now prohib) long-guns. What I want to know is if ANY non-stolen registered prohib long-gun has ever been used in a criminal act..... I seriously doubt it.
Anyhow, this is the latest information that I have straight from the "horse's mouth". Some rather disconcerting food for thought, particularly regarding the stated intent of the federal government to eliminate the "illusory permit" argument by removing the SAP provisions from the Fireams Act. Not being a legal beagle, I cannot comment upon how they will do so. What I CAN tell you is the NB CFO told me today that he attended a meeting where this specific concern was raised. The national CFC rep indicated that this would not be a problem. An assembly of high-priced lawyers on federal retainer also apparently told the assembled Provincial CFOs that any efforts to fight the SAP removal would fail. YOUR tax dollars at work.
I will post my "SAP Refusal Letter" and instructions for a Refusal Hearing when I receive them from the MB CFO.
For what it is worth, the entire "CGN 12(3) Reversal" effort is now completely irrelevant. If anything, it was a deliberate "feint" by the federales. They distracted us with a comparatively minor aspect of the overall problem. We took the bait and focussed our energies on a limited challenge, at which point they hit us broad-side with this full-bore assault. The military man whithin me says "well done". Their tactics were impeccable. On the other hand, the "still-breathing victim" that I embody says "screw you, big-time". If nothing else, it is now clear to me that "they" are playing hard-ball and utilizing every tactic in the book. In response, we need to get smart despite the fact that the opponent is overwhelmingly armed with our tax-dollars. Don't even get me started on that....
Mark C
I recieved an unsolicited call from the NB CFO (Brian Doyle) this afternoon at work. The call was in regards to 2 x SAP applications that I submitted by mail approximately a week ago. One was for my use at the local range, and the other was a "single use" request for the Maritimes CGN Shoot in May.
Anticipating that the 12(3) "converted-auto" debacle would not be addressed prior to the May CGN shoot, my SAP application for that shoot listed only my 12(4) and 12(5) factory semi-auto firearms.
Before I carry on, I must note that the NB CFO (Mr Doyle) and his staff are the best that a firearms owner could possibly hope for in terms of bureaucrats charged with enacting horribly unpopular legislation and regulations. Mr Doyle is a self-admitted "functionary" with minimal personal knowledge of firearms. Having said that, he strikes me as a very objective and fair man. Certainly, I have been far better served by Mr. Doyle and his CFO staff here in NB than I EVER was in Alberta under the draconian, self-serving, and completely pompous-ass dictates of Morris Sawchuck. The NB CFO, ably assisted by his #2 (who is a competitive shooter) has done everything within his limited powers to ensure that NB firearms owners are well-served within the constraints of the Firearms Act and the ever-tightening "noose" imposed upon us by his superiors. At the end of the day, Mr Doyle is a well-intentioned bureaucrat caught between a rock (his common sense which tends towards our cause) and a hard place (his job-preservation requirement to enforce increasingly draconian and utterly senseless legislation). I could go on, but I suspect that you get the picture. The very few rare CFOs who actually maintain and objective and fair point of view are not our enemy. I hold no ill-will towards Mr Doyle, nor his PEI and NS counterparts. I have good reason to believe that they are quietly supportive of our cause, but cannot say so at the risk of censure or job loss. So what else is new?
Anyhow, on to the meat of our conversation this afternoon. It was quite revealing, yet at the same time quite disheartening. Read on.
- Mr Doyle informed me that no SAPs could/would be issued with validity past the date of 10 April. This direction was received from the CFC, based on the pending 10 April "coming into force" of the amendments to the FA enacted by the amended version of Bill C10A. You may recall that the original C10A contained a "streamlining" provision whereby the SAP would be eliminated in favour of allowing all prohibited firearms to be transported on an ATT. The original intent being that (on the observation of the CFOs), there was nothing to be gained by the separate processing of SAPs for prohibited long-guns. As Mr Doyle related from one of his earlier CFO/CFC gatherings, the consensus was that there was no discernable benefit to the SAP process, given that all of the firearms in question were duly registered and legally owned. Apparently, the desire expressed by common-sense CFOs such as Mr Doyle to eliminate the separate SAP requirement for prohib long-guns was perverted by the "anti" faction within the bureaucracy to imply that no permits whatsoever ought to be issued for those firearms.
- My Doyle readily agreed to my request for a formal, written refusal of my May SAP application. He clearly knew what was coming next. I asked that he quote the relevant legislation and the reasons for the refusal. Mr Doyle agreed to do this, and offered to include all of the relevant information that I would require to initiate a Review Hearing. He went on to explain the process, and when I informed him that I would not be able to attend court before the end of May due to my military commitments, he was kind enough to tell me that I should advise the courts of this fact when lodging my request for a Refusal Review.
- During the course of our conversation Mr Doyle was VERY careful with his wording. As you might expect, given his position between a "rock and a hard place". Nonetheless, he indicated to me that the Refusal Hearing would likely be a wasted effort given the stated (on his net) intent of the Federal Government to legislatively remove the SAP provisions of the Firearms Act as the next order of business following the 10 April "coming into force" of C10A. In other words, the "grabbers" within the Federal Government are one step ahead of us, and fully intend to legislatively remove our "illusory permit" argument against the C10A amendments and resultant SAP denial before we can even fight it on those grounds. Notwithstanding that revelation, Mr Doyle was "neutrally supportive" of my right to a refusal hearing.
- We got into a bit of a conversation about the perceived intent of the C10A-imposed restrictions vis-a-vis the continued legitimate ownership of prohib long-guns. Mr Doyle was admirably candid, and provided some interesting insight into the various CFO working groups that he attends. First and foremost, I can state with reasonable certainty that not all CFOs are in agreement with Ottawa's dictates. The "common sense" CFOs are not utter fools, nor are they necessarily "anti's". They are simply people who find themselves in an increasingly uncomfortable government job, where their ethics are progressively in conflict with the utterly meaningless and irrational "anti-gun" dicates received from "on high".
- The NB CFO stated that in his view, the factory semi-auto 12(4) and 12(5) firearms are no different than any semi-automatic hunting rifle. In his view, they ought to be restricted firearms, and the SAP process never made any sense. As an aside, this ought to be a BIG wake-up call for those who own semi-auto commercial hunting firearms. If there is no perceived difference, then guess who/what is next on the chopping block?????
- The NB CFO admitted that the minority of the RFC who own prohib long-guns are being deliberately targetted by the Federal "anti's" because the government knows that they can get away with it. The "divide and conquer" strategy that we have long suspected against the fragmented Canadian RFC is now 100% confirmed. Interesting, no?
- I asked the NB CFO to explain the rationale for suddenly denying the continued legitimate use of duly-registered firearms by their demonstrably law-abiding citizen owners. He had no answer. The bottom line is that there is NO justification whatsoever for this latest attack on the recreational use of lawful firearms. The Federal "antis" are attacking us simply because they believe that they can get away with it.
- The NB CFO told me straight out (measuring his words VERY carefully) that it was his personal belief that the goal of the Federal government was to remove prohibited firearms from the hands of the Canadian public within a generation, and the sooner the better. Hence (my interpretation) the incremental "tightening of the noose".
- The NB CFO advised me that because the owners of 12(3), 12(4) and 12(5) firearms will no longer be able to legally "discharge" those particular firearms, the reasons for owning them will be reduced to "Collecting". As such, I was informed that when my PAL comes up for renewal I will be told that I have two choices. On the one hand, I can register myself as "bona-fide" collector and subject myself to the additional "adminstrative hoops" and "privacy concessions" associated with that status so that I can continue to wipe the dust off of of firearms that I can never use for their intended purpose. On the other hand, I can refuse to register as a "collector" and will therefore lose my 12(3), 12(4) and/or 12(5) status based on the fact that as a "non-collector" I have no further legitimate use for those firearms. At which point they will (presumably) be seized. Nice, eh?
There was probably more, but the above observations reflect the essence of my very polite and non-confrontational conversation with the NB CFO this afternoon. Suffice it to say that the intent and short-term action plan of the federal "antis" is now abundantly clear. The enactment of Bill C10A reflects a full-scale assault on the "status quo" and essentially leaves the grandfathered owners of military-style long-guns completely "high and dry". We are an easy target as a minority within the RFC, and we are therefore under full-scale attack. The writing is clearly on the wall for whichever segment of the RFC that the federal "anti's" choose to attack next. My guess (based on the NB CFO's analogy that there is no difference between a semi-auto FN FAL and a semi-auto hunting rifle) is that the large-bore commercial semi-autos will be next on the chopping block.
Our worst fears are now realized. The federal "grabbers" are aggressively advancing their agenda (again), and the owners of prohibited firearms are the first target. The next logical target (in the absence of anything more "scary") are other subsets of the recreational firearms community. Starting with the commercial semi-autos. If I happened to own a Remington auto-loader or a self-loading shotgun, I would be VERY nervous. No, strike that. I would be absolutely furious knowing full-well based on current precedent what the federal government intends for my hunting guns.....
The luxury of "Playing Ostrich" has long since passed for those who were so inclined. We now have irrefutable proof that the current federal government fully intends to disarm the Canadian public through enforced confiscation. So the only meaningful question is whether you will personally play the role of a sheep and surrender your rights, or be a wolf and legally fight this horrifically unjustified attack upon your person freedoms.
Many of us have talked about the "what if/worst-case" situation before. Well, I am here to tell you that it is quite suddenly "here and now". If "they" get away with attacking the prohibited long-gun owners, then everyone else is unquestionably fair game. Acquiescence by the firearms community and sacrifice of the minority prohibited owners will simply embolden the "antis" and infuse them with a renewed zeal for the elimination of ALL private firearms ownership. And if you can't clearly see that, well then you don't deserve to own a butter-knife let alone a firearm.
In the final analysis, this latest attack upon law-abiding and fully-compliant firearms owners is nothing short of a fundamental “breach of trust” by the federal government. It lies bare the utter falsity of their publicly-stated intention to “work with the recreational firearms community” in the interests of the common good and overall fiscal responsibility. Furthermore, it now abundantly clear why the common-sense and conciliatory recommendations resulting from the recent study by an impartial Federal appointee were withheld under Parliamentary secrecy. Those recommendations quite evidently contradicted the draconian legislative wheels which were already in motion. The “anti-gun” policy wonks evidently didn’t like what they heard from an impartial investigation (of their own appointment), so they promptly buried the results and carried on with their established agenda.
Never in my life, have I felt so utterly disregarded and duped. As a member of the Canadian Forces who has willingly gone into harm’s way in the active defence of our nation, I feel utterly betrayed. I have never voiced (nor felt) that sentiment before, but this time it is for real. I am incredibly disillusioned by this latest turn of events. In my “alter” role as a taxpaying Canadian civilian, I am completely disillusioned by this latest attack upon my legitimate and law-abiding recreational pursuits. Suffice it to say that I have lost any and all faith in our national government to “do the right thing”, now understanding that our governance is the purview of mandarins with a long-established (and apparently unassailable) agenda of socialist subjugation. Is it “tin-foil hat” time? Perhaps, but give the latest developments I honestly don’t think that my observations are anywhere close to the fringe. Despite my current profession, this Canadian government does NOT represent my personal interests. Nor do I believe that its policies represent the desires of the majority. They are blindly enacting a naïve liberal “road-map” to purported national peace and security which has long since been refuted by reality. And people like me are the ones paying the completely unjustified price.
The NB CFO has readily agreed to provide me with a formal SAP refusal letter, along with instructions for launching my request for a review. I will post the details just as soon as I receive them.
These are dark days for Canadian firearms owners, but I for one refuse to surrender my current rights without a concerted fight. If I were a million-dollar Lotto winner I would happily fund a $100,000 court challenge. Unfortunately, I am a family man of modest means. As are most of us, which the opposition knows and fully counts on. Still, I will pursue all available and affordable means to fight this completely unwarranted attack upon my rights and my personal property. Starting with the Refusal Review Hearing. Enough is enough. I am utterly sick and bone-tired of adhering to the ever more draconian laws of the land, only to be bent over and arse-raped despite my previous compliance. How many times do I have to say it? I AM NOT, NOR HAVE I EVER BEEN, THE PROBLEM!!!! SO STOP SCREWING ME AROUND!!!!!!!!!!!!
As a final point, can anyone confirm or deny the use of duly-registered 12(2), 12(3), 12(4), or 12(5) firearms in a single violent crime in Canada? I strongly suspect that no such crimes have ever occurred, otherwise we would have heard all about it. It seems to me that this would be a very powerful "speaking point" to demonstrate the utter folly and abject pointlessness of this latest attack upon lawful firearms owners. If there is zero correlation to a single act of criminal violence with registered prohib long-guns, then one must ask just what the point/purpose is of the latest restriction placed on the recreational use of duly-registered and lawfully owned prohib firearms?
I for one, would like to bring this particular point to the attention of the judge presiding over my forthcoming "Refusal Hearing". At the end of the day, we need to demonstrate that there is zero quantifiable reason for this latest attack on the use of our legally-acquired and duly registered firearms. I can refute the "no sporting purpose" argument quite well all on my lonesome, by swearing under oath that I have hunted and take wild game with various formerly non-restricted (but now prohib) long-guns. What I want to know is if ANY non-stolen registered prohib long-gun has ever been used in a criminal act..... I seriously doubt it.
Anyhow, this is the latest information that I have straight from the "horse's mouth". Some rather disconcerting food for thought, particularly regarding the stated intent of the federal government to eliminate the "illusory permit" argument by removing the SAP provisions from the Fireams Act. Not being a legal beagle, I cannot comment upon how they will do so. What I CAN tell you is the NB CFO told me today that he attended a meeting where this specific concern was raised. The national CFC rep indicated that this would not be a problem. An assembly of high-priced lawyers on federal retainer also apparently told the assembled Provincial CFOs that any efforts to fight the SAP removal would fail. YOUR tax dollars at work.
I will post my "SAP Refusal Letter" and instructions for a Refusal Hearing when I receive them from the MB CFO.
For what it is worth, the entire "CGN 12(3) Reversal" effort is now completely irrelevant. If anything, it was a deliberate "feint" by the federales. They distracted us with a comparatively minor aspect of the overall problem. We took the bait and focussed our energies on a limited challenge, at which point they hit us broad-side with this full-bore assault. The military man whithin me says "well done". Their tactics were impeccable. On the other hand, the "still-breathing victim" that I embody says "screw you, big-time". If nothing else, it is now clear to me that "they" are playing hard-ball and utilizing every tactic in the book. In response, we need to get smart despite the fact that the opponent is overwhelmingly armed with our tax-dollars. Don't even get me started on that....
Mark C
