doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Moved topic

There is no doubt in my mind there is
a concerted effort on the part of many to take our guns. Even if it ever does come to pass, I think our government will quickly discover that enforcing that ban is going to be considerably difficut. Just a hunch.

Agreed - there is indeed an effort to take away guns or to severely restrict them.

There's also people who want to restrict voting rights; civil rights and condoms.

We are blessed in this country with opposing forces that like guns, like voting rights, like civil rights and condoms. It sort of cancels out.

Here in Canada, it has become clear that the objective of the gun licensing, registration and safe storage laws, along with the soft policies carried out by the organizations charged with enforcing those laws was to accomplish the following:

Stealthily ban specific guns over time to reduce the overall numbers in the public hands, while creating the least backlash from gun owners.

Make ownership a headache so owners would give up ownership.

Sway public opinion in every possible case by portraying all gun owners as a criminal who has just not yet committed the crime.

The point of all this was as a prelude to confiscation of all guns in private hands.

While we have made some progress as far as the repeal of the long gun registry goes, there is still much to be done.

For example, right now we have two cases before the courts that demonstrate the mindset of the antis.

The first is that of a rural homeowner, a firearms instructor, confronted by a firebomb attack on his home in the middle of the night and where the attack is videotaped by home security cameras. There is no argument about that. The homeowner responded by arming himself with his legally owned pistol and fired several shots in the air, scaring off his attackers.

The home owner was charged and has been brought to trial first for dangerous use of a firearm and when that proved un-winable he has been charged with unsafe storage, a criminal offense. The prosecution's evidence is that he was able to arm himself too quickly.

The trial has been held over several months after closing arguments because the judge felt the safe storage laws are so vague that all parties needed to study up on them. If that's the courts opinion of the clarity of the laws, how is the average citizen to figure it out.

The other case involves a gentleman who had his home safe broken into and emptied of firearms when he wasn't there. So he has been charged with unsafe storage. And I'm not talking about a locked cabinet, I'm talking about a serious safe.

My point being that vigilance is required. There is nothing the antis won't do or say, regardless how far from the truth, to effect their aim, the removal of firearms from all citizens.

It is no different in the USA.

Good Post Csnvasback:
And this is precisely why I put up with the grief I receive from some of those posting here. If we don't remain constantly vigilant the anti's will ride roughshod over us here as they have done elsewhere. Is the a "conspiracy" going on to accomplish exactly this.
Well I believe jOe got it right in just one sentence.
Unless Dave Weber instructs me to do otherwise I will continue to post anything related to attempts at gun restriction/confiscation in the mainstream of this forum. If anyone on here doesn't like it don't read it.
Jim

The following is a report from The National Post newspaper with a summary of events I was referring to in my recent post. I post it now to ensure anyone reading doesn't think I was exaggerating. There is also video of the actual event on youtube but it is beyond my skills to provide the link.


Quote:
WELLAND � Ian Thomson was jolted awake at 6:37 a.m. by the sound of explosions; outside his secluded farmhouse, three masked men were hurling fire bombs at his house while one bellowed: �Are you ready to die?�

Mr. Thomson was not.

A former firearms instructor, he instead called out a warning, took one of his several pistols, marched outside in his underwear and fired one shot into the ground and two into the trees in the direction of the men, who scurried away.

He then called 911 and waited more than 10 minutes for police while using a garden hose to douse flames lapping up his front veranda, his .38-calibre snub-nose stuffed into his sagging underwear.

The officers did not bring him salvation, however. Mr. Thomson was soon arrested and charged with four gun offenses.

On Monday, after becoming the focus of a national debate over the right of Canadians to defend themselves and the government�s attitude toward gun ownership, Mr. Thomson finally had his date in court.

[linked image]

The most serious charges against him � dangerous use of a firearm and pointing a firearm � were quietly dropped by prosecutors in March, when Niagara Crown Attorney Tyler Shuster announced at a preliminary hearing that there was no viable prosecution.

�In Canada, a set of complex rules dictate when and how a person can defend themselves against threats from others. At a trial where self defence is raised, the Crown is required to disprove the defence beyond reasonable doubt,� Mr. Shuster said at the time.

Under the law, someone is justified in using force to repel an unprovoked and unlawful attack when the victim has a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm. Courts, in previous cases, have settled that a victim under attack cannot be expected to fully reflect on the risk and weigh the exact measure of how much force might be justified.

The Crown cautioned: �This assessment applies to the particular circumstances of this case. Because each case is unique, with widely diverse and sometimes contradictory evidence, no broad policy statement is intended with respect to the use of firearms in the defence of one�s home.�

Prosecutors continue to press two charges of careless storage of a firearm against Mr. Thomson, to which Mr. Thomson pleaded not guilty on Monday.

That the shooting charges were dropped was not surprising. Even a police officer who responded to Mr. Thomson�s home on the outskirts of Port Colborne the morning of the incident on Aug. 22, 2010, was shocked at the violent attack on the house. There was little doubt of danger.

Shown video of the incident, caught on a system of 12 surveillance cameras around Mr. Thomson�s property, the officer saw the prowling masked men; saw them lobbing Molotov cocktails at the windows and doors of the home and at the kennel containing his dogs, one of which was slightly burned. She heard the profanities and threats.

�It was quite astonishing,� Niagara Regional Police Constable Darlene Millin testified.

The attack appears linked to a dispute with a neighbour that had been simmering for several years. When the neighbour�s chickens started coming onto his property, he warned his neighbours and then shot and killed a rooster, court heard.

Even with the reduced charges, Mr. Thomson�s case remains a flashpoint.

More than a dozen supporters were at court; some were friends, others strangers drawn by their interest in gun laws, including representatives of the National Firearms Association.

Flyers were distributed featuring a photograph of Mr. Thomson with the slogan: �We all have an unalienable right to protect our lives,� and calling on the government to enact clear �castle laws� granting citizens the right to protect from trespass and attack while inside their homes.

�This is a perfect example of how a law-abiding person who has been threatened and is under attack and tries to defend himself is being victimized again by these laws that are unjustified,� said Charles Zach, a field officer with the firearms association, outside of court.

�Police are instructed to charge everything they can when it comes to guns,� said the association�s Paul Lepinoy.

The Crown alleges Mr. Thomson had two loaded handguns in his bedside table before the attack.

�In my opinion,� Sergeant Richard Brouwer testified, �the weapons would have had to be readily available to Mr. Thomson,� to get to the door and fire them so quickly.

Mr. Thomson, casually dressed in blue jeans and a golf shirt, took to the stand. He spoke quietly, occasionally stroking his grey Tom Seleck moustache.

He testified he ran to his locked gun safe to get the weapon to defend himself. He was loading the gun when another firebomb came through his kitchen window.

�At that point, I had no choice,� he said. After his attackers appeared to flee he put out a fire with a hose and went back inside for a second gun, loaded it and put it on the bed.

�I didn�t know many criminals were out there and whether they were coming back,� he said. �My bedroom was going to be my last line of defence.�

Court watched a video of Mr. Thomson re-enacting his actions during the attack. It took him just 38 seconds to get and load his .38-calibre gun.

Four men were charged with arson following the firebombing. They have not yet faced trial. Last month, a neighbour was charged for harassing Mr. Thomson. That case has similarly not yet gone court.

Mr. Thomson�s trial continues Tuesday when he will be cross-examined by assistant Crown attorney Robert Mahler.

And here is a quote from another article in the same National Post newspaper referencing the other situation I described.

Quote:
Perhaps the most notorious example of police and Crown overzealousness in enforcing Canada�s existing gun laws is the case of Mike Hargreaves, a former Toronto-area gun-safety instructor and collector.

"Over the Christmas holidays in 2003, while Mr. Hargreaves was visiting his son in Florida, thieves worked to open the 770 kilogram concrete and steel safe he had had installed in his north Toronto apartment.

For nearly two days, burglars used sledgehammers and blowtorches to open the vault, before they could make off with 35 high-powered handguns and rifles worth more than $40,000.

Still, police decided the precautions Mr. Hargreaves had taken to protect his collection were inadequate. They obtained a warrant for his arrest on unsafe storage charges, which forced him to remain in Florida to avoid prosecution."

AFAIK he's still in Florida.

The antis have worked and will continue to work to create a climate where this type of behavior is deemed reasonable. Don't imagine they aren't trying to do the same south of the border. These are only the tip of the iceberg up here. There have been many more and there will be more to come until we get the current laws changed to line up with logic and property rights.

Much as I would prefer just to post and read about the guns we love, as a gun owner, interested in continuing to own guns and have my son own guns if he wants to, I feel we need to keep these issues front and center. Canadian guns owners were less than vigilant, like those in the UK and Australia, and look what happened.

I am unaware of any legislation to restrict voting or civil rights and of any national organizations with that as their reason for being. The same cannot be said of the right to own firearms.

Well Jim he already has:

"Misfires @ doublegunshop.com - All topics that do not belong in one of the other forums can be placed here: Politics, Gun Rights, Hunting Dogs, Non-Fine Firearms, Non-Firearms etc. Tirades and banters permitted so long as they remain cordial with no profanity, racial slurs and or other aggressive behavior towards groups or individuals. Threats, and or overt aggression and or stupidity will not be tolerated. No pornography or discussions of a sexual nature. In an effort to keep off topic posts out of the primary forums, I will give this forum a fairly wide berth so knock your-self out."

I added color, underline, bold, and italics to the "gun rights" part.

Most of us don't want this topic in this section of the BBS.

If we want to read these types of posts we can go to the MisFires section, per the rules of the BBS.

If you think someone else's thread in this section is off-topic feel free to ask Dave to move / remove it.

But we have to have some standards. I don't want to read through an index with threads about semi-autos, pumps, mammoth ivory, microwaves, tupperware etc... Sure I don't have read them but I would rather not have them at all in this section.

Best,

Mike

+10 But he is not going to quit. He has said several times that he is done with it...So much for his credibilty...

Lonesome
Buttering up jOe will not get you a pass with him. I tried.