A firearm-rights group is heading to Federal Court to challenge the constitutionality -- and basic logic -- of the Liberal government's recent ban of many assault-style guns.

The CCFR’s Application asks the Federal Court to strike down the amended regulation on the grounds that:

1. The regulation is invalid, unlawful, and outside of the scope of powers the Criminal Code could have delegated to the Governor in Council.
2. The regulation and the means by which it was created and amended is unconstitutional;
3. The regulation and its effect breaches each of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Bill of Rights, and section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982;
4. The exercise of the regulation-making power by the Governor in Council was and is irrational, and contrary to clear fact and all available evidence; and
5. Specifically, the firearms purported to be banned by this Order in Council are obviously suitable for hunting and sporting purposes in Canada, because that is exactly what we have been doing with them for decades.

Following the Canadian government’s recent Order in Council, the RCMP began making amendments to the Firearms Reference Table (“FRT”), changing the classification of hundreds of firearms to “prohibited”, thereby unilaterally writing law and creating criminals out of law-abiding Canadians. Accordingly, the CCFR is asking the Court to declare that these purported “bans by FRT” are of no force or effect, both for similar reasons as applied to the regulation above, as well as the fact that the RCMP simply have no legal power to unilaterally make laws reclassifying firearms in Canada and creating criminals out of Canadians. This is especially troubling given that the RCMP are not even notifying the affected Canadians about these unilateral re-classifications.

The Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights says the rifles are obviously suitable for hunting and sporting purposes since shooters have been using them this way for decades. Click here to find out Breaking news We finaly have a court date!

The Liberal Government outlawed a wide range of firearms by cabinet order (OIC) on 1st of May 2020, saying the guns were designed for the battlefield, not hunting or sport shooting.

"Gun crime is on the rise, and too often people are killed or injured because criminals have used military-style assault rifles. These guns are designed to inflict mass casualties and have no place in Canada. Canadians are tired of excuses and know that “thoughts and prayers” don’t make our communities any safer."

The ban that keeps expanding quietly covers some 1,500 models and variants of what the government considers assault-style weapons  meaning they can no longer be legally used, sold or imported.

This simple Act has turned more than 72 000 law abiding gun-owners into a potential criminals. Store clerks at the gun shops are barely able to keep up with the constant new additions to the list.

The government implemented a handgun sales freeze through regulation changes starting on 21 October 2022. The importation, purchase and transfer of handguns by most individuals are no longer allowed.

Bill C-21 proposes certain long guns — rifles and shotguns — be added to the list of banned firearms, including those that can accept magazines with a capacity of more than
five rounds and semi-automatic firearms that don't have detachable magazines. This latest addition to Bill C-21 effectively outlaws most of the common hunting semiautomatic guns in Canada and old military surplus guns.

With the Liberals holding a majority in Parliament the bill is set to pass with every addition in it despite the Conservative Party tenacious fightback.

This is truly alarming times.

https://www2.liberal.ca/our-platform/gun-control/

It is critical for people to understand some simple facts about gun ownership to better understand how misguided our governments’ gun-control measures truly are;
.  Alcohol is far more devastating than gun-related illnesses or death, but the government does little to curb its use.

1. In 2017, the rate of hospitalizations entirely caused by alcohol (249 per 100,000) was comparable to the rate of hospitalizations for heart attacks (243 per 100,000) and the rate was thirteen times higher than for opioids. In 2014, alcohol contributed to 14,826 deaths in Canada, representing 22% of all substance use attributable deaths. 

With the opioid overdose crisis, concern about teens using electronic cigarettes and our fascination with the legalization of cannabis, our most dangerous legal drug continues to be ignored by Canadian policy-makers.

We have strong legislation and regulation governing tobacco and cannabis sales, marketing and labeling, but the federal government has been asleep at the wheel for years on alcohol policy. Meanwhile, some provincial governments are aggressively loosening restrictions and lowering prices.

From a public health and safety perspective, this makes absolutely no sense. In 2018, using a Health Canada-funded study, we estimated each year some 15,000 deaths, 90,000 hospital admissions and 240,000 years of life lost are directly attributable to alcohol use.

Along with impacts on productivity and crime, the annual economic toll of $15 billion was greater than that from either tobacco use or from cannabis, opioids and all illegal substances combined. On the other side of the ledger, federal and provincial governments collected less than $11 billion in revenues from alcohol in the same year. 

New research carried out by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) demonstrates that alcohol-related hospitalizations and deaths are on the rise, with 10 Canadians dying in hospitals every day due to harm from substance use, with 75% of these deaths directly related to alcohol use. 

The data also reveals that alcohol contributes to more than half of all hospitalizations linked to substance use, which are also up to 13 times more common than opioid-related hospitalizations.

.  Vehicle injuries and fatalities are far more devastating than any gun-related harm. According to this report, there is a 3.1 to 4.7 per cent rise in car accident case. The year 2018 saw an increase in the number of vehicle related fatalities and injuries, however serious injuries went down. 2018 marked the sixth consecutive year with a fatality count below 2,000 and remains among the lowest counts for all three of these casualty groups since these data were first collected by Transport Canada in the early 1970's.

2. In 2018, the number of motor vehicle fatalities was 1,922; up 3.6% from 2017 (1,856). The number of serious injuries decreased to 9,494 in 2018; down 6.1% from 2017 (10,107). The number of fatalities per 100,000 population increased slightly to 5.2 in 2018 (from 5.0 in 2017), yet is still the second lowest on record. The number of fatalities per billion vehicle kilometers traveled slightly increased to 4.9 in 2018 (from 4.8 in 2017); also the second lowest recorded In 2018  Canadian number of motor vehicle fatalities was 1,922; up 3.6% from 2017 (1,856).

.  Smoking is responsible for a devastating healthcare burden in Canada, according to a Conference Board of Canada study. The study says that smoking causes more than 45,000 deaths in Canada ANNUALLY, which is nearly 1 in 5 of all deaths (18.4%) in the country. Smoking also causes a massive $6.5 billion in direct health care costs and $16.2 billion in total economic costs, including healthcare costs. The study was based on data for the 2012 year.

3. In a report from the Lung Association, Making Quit Happen the evidence is indisputable about the dangerous health effects of smoking and exposure to second-hand smoke. Cigarette smoking and second-hand smoke are serious public health hazards, known to cause heart disease and stroke. lung disease, cancer, respiratory illnesses and a host of other serious conditions, even in non-smokers exposed to the smoke. In Canada, tobacco use is the leading causes of preventable death and exposure to second-hand smoke kills more than 1,000 non-smokers every year.

The combined number of Canadian casualties in both WW1 and WW2 is close to 106 000.

4. In Canada, medical errors account for 28,000 deaths yearly, according to the Canadian Patient Safety Institute which campaigns to reduce that number. Errors are said to be the third leading cause of death in Canada after cancer and heart disease, and every minute and 18 seconds someone is injured from unintended harm.

.  In 2018, there were 249 homicides caused by a firearm (firearm-related), 18 fewer than in 2017. (Statistics Canada 2018) The firearm-related homicide rate (0.67 per 100,000 population) decreased 8% from the previous year (0.73 per 100,000 population). Prior to 2018, firearm-related homicide had been increasing since 2014, with gang-related violence being the primary driver.

5. In 2018, 51% of firearm-related homicide were related to gang activity. Overall, in 2018, gang-related homicide committed with a firearm represented 20% of all homicides, compared to 22% the year before and 20% in 2016. 

There were 157 gang-related homicides in 2018, 6 fewer than in 2017. Note  Gang-related homicides continued to account for about one-quarter (24%) of all homicides in 2018 and the rate (0.42 per 100,000 population) decreased 5% from the previous year. This marked the first decrease after three consecutive years of increases; however, it was still the second highest rate recorded in Canada since comparable data was first collected in 2005.

Even though the government’s recent actions target legally registered firearms, and despite the low incident of firearm related deaths compared to other causes of death, there is no data on how many of the firearm-related homicides noted above were committed with legally registered guns. That is likely because it will not fit the Government's narrative. This raises several unanswered questions:

How many of them were carried out with LEGALLY OWNED guns?

Given such high incident of controllable deaths aside from those resulting from firearms, why is the Government targeting law-abiding gun-owners as the culprits of mass death?

Why is the Government seizing legally acquired property from law-abiding citizens?

Mr. PM. What is this ban REALLY about?

The New Zealand government has enacted laws and executive actions very similar to those currently being employed by the Canadian government, and recent citizen challenges to those actions have not been won; this is very concerning.

The Council of Licensed Firearms Owners sought a judicial review on the ban of some types of ammunition, and of the government's decision not to compensate owners of those types of ammunition. It also sought declarations that the recommendation of the Minister of Police - that no compensation be paid for the banned ammunition, and the Order in Council - defining such ammunition, were unlawful and to be ruled invalid.

Justice Francis Cooke said the decision not to compensate those required to surrender prohibited ammunition was contrary to the common law right to compensation and inconsistent with the earlier decision to compensate those surrendering the banned weapons and parts. But..."Ultimately these decisions were made by Parliament rather than through discretionary decision-making subject to judicial review. The criticisms do not provide a basis for a successful judicial review challenge." But there was no requirement for the Minister to conduct such an analysis before the categories of prohibited ammunition were determined by way of Order in Council. It was consistent with the purposes of the Act to take a more general view that particular ammunition designed for specific military purposes should not be permitted to be possessed for civilian use under New Zealand's firearms legislation.

"All New Zealanders should be concerned by bans without compensation of legally purchased products. This sets a truly dangerous precedent," McKee said.

"Today it's ammunition and licenced firearms owners, but if politicians are able to ban things without financial remedy, there's no telling what's next." https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/419910/challenge-to-gun-laws-dismissed-in-high-court

This is it folks, we either stand together or the road to tyranny is wide open! Do we stand united, or do we fall divided?
The choice is yours; will you stand by your brothers in arms?

The LOGO standing above the heart represents our defiance in face of tyranny and death.

It was carefully crafted upon the advice of the older generations of gun-owners and participants of previous Pro-Gun Protest Marches who had Government troops pointing guns at them.

The Right to bear Arms predates any form of Government, it is not connected with Military service or a status in society.

Anybody has the right to life and the right to protect it and his loved ones from immediate harm. Therefore, We would rather die but surrender our rights! AIM RIGHT HERE

In the 20th century, far more people were murdered by genocidal governments than by armed criminals.

According to gun prohibitionists, Europe is much safer than the United States, because Europe has stricter gun control. In fact, the historical record shows that excessive gun control (as in Europe) is about a hundred times more deadly than "insufficient" gun control (as, supposedly, in the U.S.). While a lone criminal with a gun can be very dangerous, a criminal government with a disarmed population is the deadliest thing on Earth.

Let's start with the data. If U.S. gun homicide rates had been as low as European rates in the 20th century, how many lives might have been saved? According to a 2018 article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, in 1990—a bad year for violent crime in the United States—the age-adjusted U.S. firearms homicide rate was 5.57 per 100,000 population. That same year, the rate in Western Europe was 0.53 and the rate in Eastern Europe was 1.31, giving us a European average of 0.92.

The difference between the European rate and the American rate is 4.65 per 100,000. Since the U.S. population in 1990 was nearly 249 million, these data indicate that the U.S. had 11,785 more firearms homicides that year than it would have had if the rate had been as low as it was in Europe. If we apply the estimate of 4.65 additional gun homicides per 100,000 population to every year of the 20th century, taking into account changes in the U.S. population, we find that the United States had 745,162 more firearms homicides than it would have had under the European average.

For the sake of argument, we'll assume that every excess American gun homicide would not have been a homicide if the United States had adopted European-style gun control. That is, we'll assume that other lethal means would not have been substituted for firearms. We also won't consider that many American gun homicides are justifiable self-defense. In other words, when a would-be killer is shot by a law enforcement officer or a citizen, we'll consider the criminal's death to be just as bad as the death of an innocent victim.

Finally, we'll ignore the extensive evidence that nonfatal defensive firearm use often prevents homicides and other crimes.

With the above assumptions, the failure to adopt European-style gun control would be responsible for almost three-quarters of a million excess deaths in the United States in the last century. That is a very large number. It is, however, two orders of magnitude smaller than the number of Europeans killed by governments during the same period.

International homicide statistics usually only count murders by individuals or small groups. A serial killer may murder two dozen people over the course of many years. A mass shooter may murder dozens at once. Those who use explosives or arson sometimes kill even more. But even in the aggregate, individual criminals or criminal gangs perpetrate vastly less homicide than do criminal governments.

In Europe in the 20th century, governments killed about 87.1 million victims, according to research by the late University of Hawaii political scientist R.J. Rummel. That figure does not include combat deaths, such as in World War I or II. It includes only the murder of civilians, from 61.9 million killed by the Soviet Union to 20.9 million killed by Germany. Over the long run, one's risk of being murdered is much lower in the United States than in Europe. It's no surprise that migration between the two has always been very heavily in one direction!

If you could be sure that a given government would forever be democratic, there would be no need for arms to resist a possible domestic dictatorship. Unfortunately, certainty on that score is impossible. The list of nations to have maintained both independence and free government at all times since 1900 is short: Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. That's just seven nations out of 196 worldwide.

Only a foolish version of American exceptionalism would imagine that the United States has been granted permanent immunity from the dangers of tyranny. Democracy was founded in Greece, yet that country has succumbed to dictatorship many times. Germany in 1900 was a progressive democracy and one of the most tolerant places in the world for Jews; a lot can change in a few decades.

According to gun prohibitionists, armed victims cannot meaningfully resist a murderous dictatorship with weapons of war at its disposal. The dictators who do the murdering think just the opposite.

In 1942, Adolf Hitler explained the necessity of disarming his victims: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjugated races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjugated races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police."

Tyrants past and present have come from virtually every continent and ethnic background. Their ideologies have varied, but they are united by a number of common practices. They do not allow freedom of the press or an independent court system. They attempt to bring religion under state control. And they claim for themselves a monopoly of force. Search the history of the world, from ancient times to the present, and you will not find many tyrants who deviated from the principle that the state must be stronger than the people.

Mass shootings by criminal governments occur predominantly in gun-free zones—places where the population has been disarmed. As soon as the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union began on June 22, 1941, special S.S. units called Einsatzgruppen began assembling all the Jews or Gypsies from a village and marching them out of town. The victims could then be easily machine-gunned at once. Within a year, just 3,000 Einsatzgruppen, aided by a few thousand helpers from the German police and military, had murdered about 1 million people.

"The gun has been called the great equalizer, meaning that a small person with a gun is equal to a large person," observed then–California Gov. Ronald Reagan in a 1975 article for Guns and Ammo, "but it is a great equalizer in another way, too. It ensures that the people are the equal of their government whenever that government forgets that it is servant and not master of the governed."

Read full article at https://reason.com/2020/09/22/gun-control-puts-your-life-at-risk/

That begs the Question: Why would a wannabe dictator or a group of elites that want to control a country be afraid from its armed citizens?

Maybe it's because, they want to enjoy the "fruits" of their criminal labor, not to get shot by an angry lone gunman or a group with nothing left to lose. Of course, there is no guarantee that this will not happen but by disarming the population they are just lowering the chances of it happening. To get what they want, they tend to use the pain and suffering caused by a single event but in reality they rely on the numbers. Simple.