Category: Anti Civil Rights ideas & “Friends”
TheGunBlog.ca — Canada’s Liberal Party-led administration said today that gun owners targeted by its mass confiscation fantasy will soon be able to register the goods they want seized and destroyed, possibly without compensation.
Unworkable, Unenforceable
The Liberals published a statement and hosted a “technical briefing” for media including TheGunBlog.ca. They were unable to provide any specifics on their failing confiscation effort.
- They couldn’t say how they will enforce the seizures, given that they don’t know who owns most of the rifles and shotguns they want to confiscate. (The so-called “Non-Restricted” models.)
- They couldn’t say how they will enforce seizures that owners oppose.
- They couldn’t say how they will execute a program that most provinces oppose.
- They couldn’t say how they will execute a program that most police oppose.
- They couldn’t say if confiscation agents will visit homes, or if/when police will be involved.
- They reiterated their idea of “mobile-collection units,” without more details.
- They couldn’t provide a timeline for payment in case anyone does actually get paid.
Confiscation Without Compensation
The Liberals did confirm that you might be denied compensation, even if you register your firearms for confiscation and destruction by the new deadline of March 31.
“Please note that submitting a declaration does not guarantee you will receive compensation,” they say on several of the new webpages for the crackdown. The bold text is in the original.
Last year, the Liberals broke their promise to offer payment to everyone who participated. They expect a maximum of 136,000 gun owners to opt-in, far below industry estimates of the number of affected owners.
Most Provinces Oppose Confiscation
- Quebec is the only province that publicly supports the attacks unleashed by the Liberals in May 2020.
- Winnipeg, Halifax, and Cape Breton are the only municipalities that have said they support the seizures against government-licensed firearm owners.
- Alberta, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Yukon have said they won’t participate, or are actively working to block the crackdown.
No Surrender
TheGunBlog.ca isn’t aware of any individual who intends to surrender their gear, and is aware of many who intend to keep their gear.
It doesn’t matter at this point, because thankfully, the confiscation program is still only a confiscation fantasy.
So I see that America does not have a corner on having some real idiots in their Ruling Class! But I REALLY feel sorry for the average Canadian. As I seen myself, they are a really decent bunch of folks and some GREAT Allies! Grumpy
Canada’s long-promised gun “buyback” is already collapsing under the weight of its own bad assumptions, and the early numbers make that painfully obvious.
After years of buildup, bureaucracy, and political chest-thumping, the federal government’s test run managed to recover 25 firearms out of an expected 200. That’s not a hiccup. That’s a face-plant. And it perfectly illustrates why this entire program was doomed from the start.
According to Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), this so-called buyback is nothing more than compensated confiscation. The government didn’t own these firearms. It didn’t manufacture them. It didn’t sell them. Yet it now demands lawful owners surrender them or face criminal penalties because a bureaucrat slapped an “assault-style” label on more than 2,500 models.
Calling that a “buyback” isn’t just misleading. It’s dishonest.
CBC’s reporting confirms what gun owners have been saying all along. The program only targets legally owned, registered firearms. Not smuggled guns, not gang weapons, not black-market pistols driving violent crime in Montreal or Toronto.
In fact, the CBC report openly acknowledges the central flaw: to believe this program improves public safety, you’d have to believe licensed Canadian gun owners are responsible for rising gang violence.
They’re not.
Even worse, enforcement appears optional in practice. A leaked recording caught the federal minister responsible admitting municipal police don’t have the resources to enforce the program. And that it was pushed largely to appease Quebec voters. That’s not public safety policy. That’s political theater.
And the logistics? A nightmare. Provinces are refusing to participate. Police agencies don’t want the job. The Nova Scotia pilot already failed. Yet Ottawa insists everything just needs “clarification,” as if Canadians didn’t understand the instructions well enough to surrender property they lawfully own.
Gun control advocates argue the goal isn’t stopping all crime. It’s preventing mass shootings. But even by that narrow metric, the policy makes no sense. Confiscating hunting rifles and competition firearms while illegal guns continue flowing across borders doesn’t reduce risk. It just punishes compliance.
The real message here isn’t subtle. Law-abiding gun owners saw the program for what it was and refused to play along. Twenty-five guns turned in wasn’t apathy. It was rejection.
Canada’s buyback isn’t failing because it hasn’t been explained well enough. It’s failing because it targets the wrong people, ignores real crime drivers, and treats a fundamental right like a government-issued privilege that can be bought back at a discount.
And that’s not a “step in the right direction.” It’s an expensive, embarrassing dead end.
We’ve covered for some time the so-called “safe storage” ordinance passed by Savannah city leaders and the resulting lawsuit challenging the ordinance on Second Amendment grounds.
Now, lawmakers in the Peach State have voted to put an end to the whole mess.
First, however, some background. Savannah passed an ordinance in April 2024 that requires firearms to be “securely stored” when left in cars and establishes a maximum penalty of $1,000 in fines and 30 days in jail for people who leave them inside unlocked vehicles. It also mandates that those who have had a firearm stolen report the theft to the Savannah Police Department within 24 hours.
Gun-rights organizations and pro-gun lawmakers believe the ordinance violates Georgia’s firearms preemption law. And a subsequent lawsuit argued just that.
More recently, Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr jumped into the fray, saying that the ordinance simply doesn’t meet court muster.
“This misguided attempt to punish law-abiding Georgians does absolutely nothing to address crime, and it won’t hold up in Court,” Carr said in a press release announcing that he had filed a brief with the Superior Court of Chatham County in support of the plaintiffs in a case challenging the law.
“No matter how much the Mayor disagrees with our laws, he cannot openly infringe on the Second Amendment rights of our citizens. Progressive politics aren’t a defense for government overreach.”
Before the trial could start, the state Senate on January 13 voted along party lines to ban cities from requiring gun owners to lock up their guns in cars, the first bill approved in this year’s legislative session.
The legislation was approved in the Senate by a 32-21 vote. The state House had passed the measure last April 4, and it now heads to Gov. Brian Kemp for his consideration.
The controversy centers on whether the city ordinance violates the state’s strong firearms preemption laws. Sponsors and supporters of the measure in both the House and Senate say it does.
And indeed, a general reading of the law suggests it runs afoul of the language. That law states: “No county or municipal corporation, by zoning, by ordinance or resolution, or by any other means, nor any agency, board, department, commission, political subdivision, school district, or authority of this state, other than the General Assembly, by rule or regulation or by any other means shall regulate in any manner: (A) Gun shows; (B) The possession, ownership, transport, carrying, transfer, sale, purchase, licensing, or registration of firearms or other weapons or components of firearms or other weapons; (C) Firearms dealers or dealers of other weapons; or (D) Dealers in components of firearms or other weapons.”
One supporter, state Sen. Colton Moore, stated that the bill would safeguard gun owners’ rights.
“You can travel the state freely knowing you’re not going to be a victim of a crime and then be made a criminal as we’ve seen in Savannah,” Moore said during the Senate debate on the bill. “We’re putting freedom back into the hands of the citizenry.”
When anti-gun Democrat Abigail Spanberger was elected Virginia’s new governor back in November, it was a victory that many believed would embolden gun-ban advocates in the state legislature. Judging from a new measure now under consideration by lawmakers, “embolden” might have been too mild a word.
House Bill 217 is a sweeping gun and magazine ban with a few other restrictions thrown in for good measure. According to a state alert to Virginia members distributed by Gun Owners of America (GOA), the measure is a “damaging” one.
“As the Virginia Legislature’s starting date rapidly approaches, anti-gunners are already preparing to axe your gun rights by firing off new bills during the bill pre-filing period,” GOA wrote in the alert. “HB 217 is especially damaging, and it aims to do a sweeping number of infringements on your rights if passed.”
According to GOA, the measure would ban the importation, sale, manufacture, purchase and transfer of a wide range of commonly owned semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns by classifying them as “assault firearms” based on features such as pistol grips, threaded barrels, folding or adjustable stocks, muzzle devices or the ability to accept detachable magazines.
Additionally, it specifically targets semi-automatic pistols and shotguns commonly used for lawful purposes, including pistols with threaded barrels and semi-automatic shotguns with detachable magazines or fixed magazine capacities exceeding seven rounds.
Other provisions in the bill would ban the sale and transfer of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds if manufactured on or after July 1, 2026, outlawing standard-capacity magazines that are factory-issued with many popular firearms, along with making the importation, sale, manufacture, purchase or transfer of a prohibited firearm a Class 1 misdemeanor, punishable by up to 12 months in jail and a $2,500 fine.
The bill would even criminalize possession, purchase or transport of a so-called “assault firearm” by anyone under the age of 21, even if the firearm was lawfully owned and manufactured before the ban date.
“In addition, HB207 could obliterate the gains we made on the federal level by convincing Congress to lower the National Firearms Act tax on suppressors from $200 to $0, thanks to your persistence and advocacy,” GOA wrote.
“HB207 hopes to impose a new $500 Virginia tax on suppressors, in addition to the existing federal tax and registration requirements.”
To battle the measure, GOA asked members to do two things in the immediate future. First, use the form provided in the state alert to inform their state delegates that they oppose HB 217, HB 207, SB 28, and SB 38.
The second request is to join the Virginia Citizens Defense League Lobby Day at the state capital on January 19. VCDL’s lobby day is an opportunity for gun owners’ message to be heard and amplified, and a massive attendance of gun owners there can make a serious impact on how these bills move forward.
Ultimately, Republicans losing the governorship in Virginia has created a situation where gun-ban legislation will be pushed harder than ever before. It’s up to gun owners to make their voices heard and fight to kill these restrictive measures.
As the Virginia Legislature’s starting date rapidly approaches, anti-gunners are already preparing to axe your gun rights by firing off new bills during the bill pre-filing period.
HB 217 is especially damaging, and it aims to do a sweeping number of infringements on your rights if passed. The bill:
- Bans the importation, sale, manufacture, purchase, and transfer of a wide range of commonly owned semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns by classifying them as “assault firearms” based on features such as pistol grips, threaded barrels, folding or adjustable stocks, muzzle devices, or the ability to accept detachable magazines.
- Targets specifically semi-automatic pistols and shotguns commonly used for lawful purposes, including pistols with threaded barrels and semi-automatic shotguns with detachable magazines or fixed magazine capacities exceeding seven rounds.
- Bans the sale and transfer of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds if manufactured on or after July 1, 2026, outlawing standard-capacity magazines that are factory-issued with many popular firearms.
- Makes the importation, sale, manufacture, purchase, or transfer of a prohibited firearm a Class 1 misdemeanor, punishable by up to 12 months in jail and a $2,500 fine.
- Imposes a three-year prohibition on possessing, purchasing, or transporting any firearm for anyone convicted under the bill, expanding firearm prohibitions through misdemeanor offenses.
- Criminalizes possession, purchase, or transport of an “assault firearm” by anyone under the age of 21, even when the firearm was lawfully owned and manufactured before the ban date.
- Authorizes seizure and forfeiture of firearms, magazines, and accessories involved in violations, even when the underlying offense is a misdemeanor rather than a felony.
- Expands concealed handgun permit disqualifications by tying permit eligibility to the new “assault firearm” misdemeanor convictions.
In addition, HB207 could obliterate the gains we made on the federal level by convincing Congress to lower the National Firearms Act tax on suppressors from $200 to $0 thanks to your persistence and advocacy. HB207 hopes to:
- Impose a new $500 Virginia tax on suppressors, in addition to the existing federal tax and registration requirements.
To recap, the Virginia Legislature has already also introduced SB 27 which holds manufacturers and dealers liable and susceptible to potentially multimillion dollar lawsuits for things out of their control and SB 38, seeks to grow the already stringent regulations regarding the confiscation or transfer of firearms from a “prohibited person.”
How can we fight back against these egregious policies that threaten our inalienable Second Amendment rights? There are currently two essential and immediate options that we need your help with.
1. Use the form at the top of this post to contact your state delegate and senator, and tell them that you oppose HB 217, HB 207, SB 27, and SB 38 for the reasons outlined above. We need to flood Richmond politicians with calls and emails to make it clear that Virginians will not tolerate and stand by when our constitutional rights are under attack.
2. Join us for the The Virginia Citizens Defense League Lobby Day on January 19, 2026. VCDL’s lobby day is an opportunity for our message to be heard and amplified; with a massive attendance of gun owners at the state capitol, we can make a serious impact on how these bills perform. Click here to learn more
That’s all changed over the past fifteen years or so, and while Democrats haven’t moved to repeal permitless carry they’ve enacted a number of new gun laws including a waiting period, Extreme Risk Protection Orders, universal background checks, bans on gun sales to adults under the age of 21, and bans on “large capacity” magazines (to name a few).
Now Democrats are once again hoping to add to the list of “gun-free zones” in the state by pushing for a ban on lawfully carried firearms in bars in the city of Burlington.
Burlington Mayor Emma Mulvaney Stanak, Senate President Phil Baruth, and members of Gun Sense Vermont will gather at the Statehouse on Wednesday to renew their push for a bill banning guns in Burlington bars.
In March, the charter change garnered nearly 87% of Burlington Town Meeting Day voters’ support.
S.131 passed the Vermont Senate in April and has stayed in the House Committee on Government Operations ever since.
Vermont has a firearms preemption law in place that prevents Burlington officials from enacting the gun ban on their own, which is why the mayor and other anti-gunners are pushing for the legislature to create a carveout for the state’s biggest city.
Vermont Gov. Phil Scott has previously rejected the proposal, stating that piecemeal gun control laws that vary from town to town are a bad idea, and he’s not wrong. But that’s not the only reason to oppose the creation of yet another “gun-free zone.”
Most gun owners would agree that mixing firearms and alcohol is a bad idea, but while Vermont doesn’t specifically criminalize possessing firearms while under the influence, any reckless behavior with a gun while intoxicated can still lead to criminal charges.
Importantly, though, not everyone in a bar or restaurant that serves alcohol is there to get sloshed, and depriving them of their ability to lawfully carry just because they’re in a place where booze is available makes no sense.
When my late wife and I would go out to dinner, I was generally the designated driver, and I was generally carrying one of my handguns as well. She got to have a cocktail or two, I stuck with my Coke Zero, and neither one of us caused any issues for our fellow patrons or restaurant staff.
If individual bar owners want to make the choice to declare their establishments off-limits to lawful carry, they already have the ability to do so. In Vermont all they have to do is post the proper signage, and if they run across any patrons who are carrying they can ask them to leave (and call police if they refuse to do so).
Burlington officials and their allies in the legislature want to take away the power of these business owners to choose for themselves whether to allow lawful carry on their premises by instituting a blanket ban on carrying in these establishments. That’s entirely unnecessary, and if Democrats do advance this measure to Scott’s desk, he should once again declare his opposition and formally veto the legislation.
Editor’s Note: President Trump and Republicans across the country are doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.
Help us continue to report on their efforts and legislative successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Cam Edwards has covered the 2nd Amendment for 20 years as a broadcast and online journalist, as well as serving on the board of directors for the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
He lives outside of Farmville, Virginia with his family, three dogs, two barn cats, a flock of chickens, and an undisclosed number of firearms for their protection.
If there is a single, consistent strategy in the modern gun-control playbook, it is this: choke off youth participation.
The thinking is simple, even if it is deeply flawed. Discourage young people from hunting, shooting sports, and firearms culture today, and it becomes easier to erode public support for the Second Amendment tomorrow. It is a long game—and Colorado has just offered one of its most counterproductive examples yet.
Beginning January 1, 2026, a new Colorado law will prohibit anyone under the age of 18 from attending a gun show unless accompanied by a parent or legal guardian. The state claims this is about “safety.” In reality, it looks far more like another attempt to stigmatize lawful gun ownership and place barriers between young people and a constitutionally protected right.
To even host a gun show under Colorado’s new regime, organizers must submit detailed security plans to local law enforcement. These plans include vendor lists, projected attendance numbers, surveillance camera coverage, and other operational details. Promoters must also carry liability insurance tailored to the event. None of this is free, and none of it is accidental.
But the restriction on unaccompanied minors stands out as particularly misguided. Most young people who attend gun shows already come with family members. Forcing them to prove that fact at the door only reinforces the message that firearms ownership is somehow suspect or dangerous. For many teenagers—especially those inclined to question authority—this kind of treatment has the opposite of its intended effect. It does not discourage interest. It fuels it.
There is also a cultural blind spot at work here. Making something forbidden or tightly controlled has long been a reliable way to make it more appealing to young people. Turning gun shows into quasi-restricted spaces risks transforming them into something perceived as edgy or “off-limits,” which is hardly a deterrent to curious teens.
Meanwhile, the restriction itself is easily bypassed. An 18-year-old friend or sibling solves the problem instantly, and anyone tasked with enforcing the rule on the ground is likely to recognize its futility.
Where the law may succeed is in raising costs. The added regulatory burdens placed on gun shows inevitably drive up admission prices. Higher entry fees discourage families from attending and make it harder for first-time visitors, young or old, to participate. That, not safety, appears to be the real objective.
This gun show restriction is only one piece of a broader legislative push in Colorado. Additional measures, including permit-to-purchase schemes and mandatory training requirements for certain semi-automatic firearms, are scheduled to take effect as well. Each layer adds cost, delay, and friction for law-abiding citizens, while doing little to address violent crime.
Legal challenges are already underway. Last fall, the Colorado State Shooting Association, the official state affiliate of the National Rifle Association, filed suit against Senate Bill 25-003, dubbed by critics the “Polis Permission Slip”, which establishes a permit-to-purchase system for firearms.
Colorado lawmakers may believe they are shaping safer communities. What they are actually doing is reinforcing the perception that government views a fundamental right as a problem to be managed rather than a liberty to be respected. History suggests that approach does not age well—and it certainly does not win hearts and minds, especially among the next generation.
