Author: Grumpy
Federal election season is underway in Canada and Liberal Party leader Justin Trudeau wants to make sure citizens know where he and his Lefty cohorts stand on guns.
“One Canadian killed by gun violence is one too many,” said Trudeau in a recent press release obtained by GunsAmerica.
“That’s why we made our communities safer by banning more than 1,500 types of military-style assault weapons, and we’re going to continue to strengthen our gun laws across the country. Keeping our kids and communities safe from gun violence should be an issue that we all agree on – but Erin O’Toole doesn’t,” the prime minister continued. “He wants to repeal our ban on these dangerous weapons and weaken our gun laws. Canadians can’t let that happen.”
O’Toole leads the Conservative party. While Trudeau accused O’Toole of wanting to repeal the 2020 confiscatory ban on many commonly owned firearms (see graph below), O’Toole said Sunday that he has no plans on changing the law.
SEE ALSO: Biden Should Look to Canada to See the Mess of Confiscating Guns
“It’s critically important for me to say to Canadians today that we are going to maintain the ban on assault weapons, we’re going to maintain the restrictions that were put in place in 2020,” O’Toole said.
In other words, whether one votes Conservative or Liberal — Canadians are not going to be allowed to buy, sell or possess modern sporting rifles.
Trudeau also vowed to continue to put the screws to the country’s law-abiding gun owners via the following:
- Toughening our laws on banned assault weapons by making it mandatory for owners to either sell the firearm back to the government or have it rendered permanently inoperable;
- Cracking down on high-capacity magazines to limit the number of rounds guns can hold, and ban the sale or transfer of magazines that hold more than the legal number of bullets; and
- Helping provinces and territories who implement a ban on handguns across their jurisdiction.
“These guns have no place in our communities and have no place anywhere in Canada,” Trudeau said at a press conference, in reference to the ban.
“You can’t buy these guns, you can’t sell these guns, you can’t use these guns. And even if you own one today, no one gets a pass,” Trudeau added.
What Trudeau is saying is a vote for the Liberal Party is a vote for confiscation. Polls open on Sept. 20, 2021.
GunsAmerica readers might remember when former President Donald Trump backed out of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty at the NRA show in 2019. The move was hailed as a reaffirmation of national sovereignty and a commitment to keeping European bureaucrats out of U.S. gun policy.
Now, it looks like the Biden Administration is working to put U.S. gun owners under international control.
William Malzahn, a U.S. State Department official at the Office of Conventional Arms Threat Reduction, assured his European counterparts at a recent conference that the Biden Administration remains committed to “strong and effective” controls on conventional arms, according to a transcript obtained by Breitbart News:
I have come from Washington D.C. this week to take the floor on the agenda item Treaty Universalization to underscore the continuing commitment of the United States to responsible international trade in conventional arms. The United States has long supported strong and effective national controls on the international transfer of conventional arms, and the Arms Trade Treaty is an important tool from promoting those controls internationally.
The National Rifle Association warned back in 2013 that the treaty would impose a registration scheme on imported firearms by requiring each state party to maintain “national records” on the “end users” of imported firearms “for a minimum of ten years.”
The Obama administration made the treaty a priority, but it remained inoperative because the U.S. Senate never gave its approval.
SEE ALSO: Trump Backs Out of UN Arms Trade Treaty: ‘We are taking our signature back’
Still, Obama’s Secretary of State John Kerry had signed the treaty, which prompted President Trump to revoke that signature in 2016. “We will never surrender American sovereignty to anyone,” Trump said during his NRAAM address that year. “We are taking our signature back.”
This latest move by the Biden Administration could indicate that Secretary of State Antony Blinken plans to sign it once again.
If that happens, it’s highly unlikely that the Senate will agree to ratify. The Constitution requires two-thirds of the Senate (67 members) to approve any treaty signed by the president or secretary of state. Since Democrats only hold a one-vote majority, they would need 17 Republicans to join them in signing.
SEE ALSO: Rep. Kelly: It’s Time to ‘Tear Up’ the UN Arms Trade Treaty
President Biden has been mostly stymied in his attempts to restrict Second Amendments rights domestically. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives is set to adopt rules redefining “firearms” and banning arm braces, but the Democrat-controlled Congress has failed to pass any of Biden’s other agenda items.
In his recent weeks, however, the administration has worked to restrict firearms and ammunition imports, a sector where the White House has more power to act unilaterally. Biden’s officials announced last month new sanctions on Russian ammunition, which could dry up supplies from that country if they are not lifted within the next few years.
Categories
Cute
Forty-three Republican members of the Tennessee legislature signed on to two letters Tuesday asking the state’s governor and attorney general to oppose two rule changes proposed by the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF).
The letters, spearheaded by Second Amendment advocate and Chair of the House Criminal Justice Committee Representative Clay Doggett (R-Pulaski), state that the ATF rule changes would “violate state and federal Second Amendment rights and arbitrarily transform thousands of law-abiding Tennesseans into felons.”
Governor Bill Lee and Attorney General Herbert Slatery have been called on by legislators to represent Tennesseans by using all means in their executive, legal and law enforcement powers to prevent the ATF from enforcing such criminal measures within the state.
At issue are two rule changes proposed by ATF, 86 FR 27,720, Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms, and 86 FR 30,826, Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached “Stabilizing Braces.”
The definition of a frame or receiver addressed in the first proposed rule change, the latter of which was removed from federal law more than 50 years ago, is “a clear construction of a national gun registry forbidden by federal law,” the letters state, a move also called out in August by 27 members of Congress.
The second rule change would clarify when a rifle is “intended to be fired from the shoulder” and, therefore, subject to regulation under the National Firearms Act (NFA) passed by Congress in 1934 to regulate “gangster” type weapons or those likely to be used for criminal purposes.
In this case, the target is a favorite of gun control advocates – the AR-15 – which would make thousands of Tennesseans felons simply for possessing such weapons, Tennessee legislators point out to the governor and attorney general.
The AR-15, if determined to fall within the scope of the NFA, would require registration and be subject to taxation.
Legislators also remind the governor and attorney general of recent actions that demonstrate the importance of the Second Amendment to Tennesseans.
At the local level, two-thirds of Tennessee county legislative bodies – at the insistence of their constituents – have passed Second Amendment Sanctuary resolutions, making it clear “they do not want further erosion of their constitutional rights.”
State legislators, likewise, passed four laws during the 2021 legislative session to protect Tennesseans from federal overreach on their Second Amendment rights:
HB0446/SB0557 – “Tennessee Firearm Protection Act”
HB0902/SB1334 – “Second Amendment Privacy and Protection Act of 2021”
HB0928/SB1335 – “Tennessee Second Amendment Sanctuary Act”
HB1171/SB1142 – “Firearms Information Privacy Protection Act”
In a press release, Doggett said the proposed rules pose a “looming threat to our God-given rights,” adding also that the “creation of law by agency regulation sets a dangerous and unlawful precedent.”
“Our Second Amendment freedoms come at the price of constant vigilance against moves like these from our current administration which are nothing short of an attempt to enforce federal gun control by bureaucracy,” said Doggett.
Rule 86 FR 27,720, Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms was proposed by the bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives on May 21, 2021, and the public comment period ended on August 19, 2021.
Rule 86 FR 30,826, Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached “Stabilizing Braces” was proposed by the bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives on June 10, 2021, currently has 178,811 public comments with the public comment period ending at midnight on September 8, 2021.
– – –
Laura Baigert is a senior reporter at The Star News Network, where she covers stories for The Tennessee Star and The Georgia Star News.
Photo “Representative Clay Doggett” by capitol.tn.gov. Background Photo “Modified AR-15” by Zgauthier. CC BY-SA 3.0.
A former Illinois high school student recently settled a lawsuit against her high school over allegations that the school violated her constitutional right to participate in a counter-protest to her classmates in 2018. Recent reports say that the school agreed to pay her $35,000 as part of a settlement.
Madison Oster, then 16, and her father Jeremy Oster filed the suit in July of 2018 alleging that the Hononegah Community High School violated her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to demonstrate against an anti-gun protest in March of 2018.
At the time, students were encouraged to protest gun violence and agitate for tougher gun laws following the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida on high school grounds. However, Oster along with other pro-gun students wanted to counter-protest and promote the Second Amendment.
The group of students carried pro-gun, pro-life, and pro-law enforcement signs, but were directed to stand on the sidewalk away from the main protest on the high school football field. The lawsuit alleged that the pro-gun group was subjected to verbal abuse from other students and unfair treatment by the school staff.
When Oster asked Executive Associate Principal Chad Dougherty why the group would not be allowed to counter-protest with the other students he said he was afraid that the pro-gun students would “disturb the peace” and “start a fight,” alleged the lawsuit.
“One student yelled at Madison to kill herself. Another student took pictures of Madison’s group, one of which reportedly became an online meme and method of ridicule among the other HCHS students,” stated the lawsuit. “Finally and ironically, before allowing them to return to class, Dougherty warned the small pro-gun-rights group not to bully the students with different views.”
While the pro-gun counter-protesters were eventually allowed back onto the field the staff still separated them from the other protesters. When they asked Principal Eric Flohr why they weren’t allowed to join the others, he allegedly told them “You are the only ones who feel that way,” before walking off.
“It is unconscionable for school officials to allow this sort of thing, much less enable it,” said the Second Amendment Foundation’s Alan Gottlieb, who contributed to the lawsuit. “Students with different viewpoints retain their free speech rights. When school officials allow those students to be harassed and bullied, something must be done.”
“First Amendment rights are just as important as Second Amendment rights,” he said, “especially when being used to protect those Second Amendment rights.”
With the lawsuit settled, the Oster’s allegations against the high school along with Superintendent Michael Dugan, Principal Dougherty and retired Principal Eric Flohr have been dismissed.
“Ms. Oster is very glad the matter was resolved,” said the Oster’s attorney David Sigale. “I am very proud that Ms. Oster fought for freedom of speech in this case, and now, as a member of the U.S. military, is helping to protect everyone’s freedoms.”
