CCFR:
https://firearmrights.ca/en/membership-info/

CSSA:
https://cssa-cila.org/membership/

NFA:
https://nfa.ca/member-area/become-a-member/

The CCFR seems to be the most active lobby group at the moment. But the NFA is very involved and has a massive membership.

As I haven't read Bill C-71 in its entirety, I'm not in a position to comment on the specifics. Initially however I have some feedback:

It's reasonable that a thorough background check be undertaken on anyone applying for a firearm's license.

A person who sells a firearm should keep record of the name and contact information of the new owner. The onus is on the Seller to insure that the new owner is licensed to purchase a firearm.

There are circumstances where a person shouldn't possess firearms that surround their mental state. This should be considered in issuing a firearm's license.

I don't believe the change to the firearm transport policy is warranted. It was changed to what it was because of an overabundance of paperwork required by the Police Department concerned.

I actually liked the firearm registry. If you attended a home as a police officer, it was good to know that there were firearms registered at that address. If someone beat-up their wife (or husband) and you were attending the scene, you had a bit of a heads-up before you got out of the car (although unregistered weapons are always a possibility).

The Politicians don't seem to understand that firearm's are only the tools used to sometimes kill people. If a firearm isn't available a knife, axe or scissors will be used.

Keeping a tab on all firearms makes common sense in today's Society.

Known criminals who want to carry a firearm will carry one regardless of if its registered or not.

An appeal process should be clearly outlined and included within the Bill.

Firearms are not the only danger to Society. It's legal to carry a knife and an explosive can be made from what you have in your kitchen. I think increased regulation involving legal and licensed firearms is like the tail wagging the dog. It doesn't make a lot of sense...

I suppose Justin is caring too much about his tokes and not enough about the rights of lawful gun owners.

Im against it. Full stop. Non restricted should mean that, how does keeping a sale receipt keep anyone safer? As to the RCMP having knowledge of my firearms, it means coming in with a more authoritarian mass threaten tactics. This show how this is The Alberta High River gun grab was a prime example of how corrupt the RCMP are. Heres ya go watch the following.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkurDzAHiw4

...The Alberta High River gun grab was a prime example of how corrupt the RCMP are. Heres ya go watch the following.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkurDzAHiw4

I can't comment on how the RCMP in High River, Alberta operates, but corrupt? I highly doubt that.

As to the video, I think that there's more to this than meets the eye. In this scenario, the police have a right to inspect gun collections if they feel something is amiss. This is done to ensure that the number of guns involved are stored safely in accordance with the law. From my experience, this isn't routinely done unless the police have reasonable and probable grounds that the storage is unsafe.

With the number of violent crimes, Detectives have better things to do than to pester honest gun collectors. I keep and store my firearms safely and the Police are welcome anytime. Society would be much better off if everyone stored their weapons properly and were more accommodating with the Police. That said, I admit my opinion on this subject is bias.

Careful how accommodating you are Wayne.

Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre. 🙂

Jimbo,

I don't think corrupt in the traditional sense is the word I would use. More like corrupted by politics. Similar to how the leadership of the OPP was by the Caledonia disgrace. The RCMP seems to have lost some of it's cachet as a top level police force in the eyes of Canadians.

Careful how accommodating you are Wayne.

Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre. 🙂

And...

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

I used the word corrupt as they KNEW what they were doing is wrong yet they did it anyway. Break and enter is the start of the charges that should of been laid, all the way to criminal conspiracy.For the High River case Please dont give me the" They were just doing their jobs". That was shown not to be a defence in Nuremburg. I have friends that wear that uniform still to date, whenever I ask em about cases like this amongst others they hang their heads in shame. Now I dont want to make this a bash the RCMP thread, but when the issues like these start stacking up, they need to stop and reexamine what the job really is. The detectives in the video were out of line, and tried to bully the LAGO into admitting he was breaking the law in someway. The reason for them to force themselves into his residence was to inspect the "firearms". Anything more then that is overreaching.He was completely justified in his reaction and denial to anymore questions. The parts they were asking about were outside the purview of the "reason" to be there.

I used the word corrupt as they KNEW what they were doing is wrong yet they did it anyway. Break and enter is the start of the charges that should of been laid, all the way to criminal conspiracy.For the High River case Please dont give me the" They were just doing their jobs". That was shown not to be a defence in Nuremburg. I have friends that wear that uniform still to date, whenever I ask em about cases like this amongst others they hang their heads in shame. Now I dont want to make this a bash the RCMP thread, but when the issues like these start stacking up, they need to stop and reexamine what the job really is. The detectives in the video were out of line, and tried to bully the LAGO into admitting he was breaking the law in someway. The reason for them to force themselves into his residence was to inspect the "firearms". Anything more then that is overreaching.He was completely justified in his reaction and denial to anymore questions. The parts they were asking about were outside the purview of the "reason" to be there.

I watched the linked video. It seems to be a case in Toronto, not 'the High River case.' I'd be interested in the case you're referring to. Break and Enter? Criminal Conspiracy? Nuremburg? Hang their head in shame? Really?

As far as the video is concerned, you mention that the Detectives were out-of-line. I don't see that the Detectives did anything wrong? Like I said, this video doesn't outline the reason why the police were there and the facts-in-issue. There appears to be much more to it. Interesting that this guy had set-up a camera. This isn't something I'd normally do because a Police Officer came to check my firearms...

I used the word corrupt as they KNEW what they were doing is wrong yet they did it anyway. Break and enter is the start of the charges that should of been laid, all the way to criminal conspiracy.For the High River case Please dont give me the" They were just doing their jobs". That was shown not to be a defence in Nuremburg. I have friends that wear that uniform still to date, whenever I ask em about cases like this amongst others they hang their heads in shame. Now I dont want to make this a bash the RCMP thread, but when the issues like these start stacking up, they need to stop and reexamine what the job really is. The detectives in the video were out of line, and tried to bully the LAGO into admitting he was breaking the law in someway. The reason for them to force themselves into his residence was to inspect the "firearms". Anything more then that is overreaching.He was completely justified in his reaction and denial to anymore questions. The parts they were asking about were outside the purview of the "reason" to be there.

I watched the linked video. It seems to be a case in Toronto, not 'the High River case.' I'd be interested in the case you're referring to. Break and Enter? Criminal Conspiracy? Nuremburg? Hang their head in shame? Really?

As far as the video is concerned, you mention that the Detectives were out-of-line. I don't see that the Detectives did anything wrong? Magazines commonly store ammunition. Ammunition storage is regulated by law. The officer was in the performance of his duty and was within his rights to inquire into the location of the magazines. Why was the owner so reluctant to answer a reasonable question?

Like I said, this video doesn't outline the reason why the police were there and all of the facts that were known by the Detectives. There appears to be much more to it. Interesting that this guy had set-up a camera. This isn't something I'd normally do because a Police Officer came to check my firearms that were stored properly...

Did the RCMP get reprimanded for the "gun grab". Yes.

Is it blown a tad out of proportion...yes.

A couple articles to put it into perspective: (Note, the National Post tends to lean to the right, and the CBC is moderate/far left.)

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/high-river-residents-paid-2-3m-for-controversial-rcmp-home-and-gun-sweeps-during-2013-flood

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/high-river-flood-gun-seizure-class-action-dropped-1.4584062

Its an example where democracy is at work. RCMP overstepped their bounds, civilian oversight responded, some people got their knuckles rapped, we all move on. Do we really want to get anyone fired, or hit the taxpayer up to foot the bill for a class action lawsuit for something like this? Thats up for argument. But imo justice was served.

Also of note...the RCMP were not just randomly "busting into peoples" houses in a complete disregard of private property. I'm not familiary with the Emergency Measures Legislation in Alberta...but assuming its similar to Ontario they had justification to do this.

Thanks for the information Crown. I didn't even hear about these seizures on the East Coast. Since I retired, I've cared less than I use to about the news (not that I've ever cared a lot). The CBC is too far left for me to take much interest in their reporting.

Newspapers often don't get the story right. My tactical team was on standby at a loggers strike in Fort Francis (the Loggers decided to use flame-throwers against Police). I was driving back to the Motel one evening and saw a house on fire. I stopped and tried to enter the front door, but was driven back by the flames. A next door neighbour called to me and I attended to an elderly woman who was badly burned. I covered her wounds and she left by Ambulance.

Two weeks later I was back in Toronto and received a call from a Staff Superintendent who wanted to see me immediately (I thought I was in shit). When I got there he congratulated me and told me that I would be receiving an award for heroism. I asked what it was for and he handed me the paper. Apparently I had entered the burning house without concern for my own safety, carried-out the elderly woman, was injured, but gave life-saving first aid to her. It was all down there in black and white.

When I told the Chief Superintendent what really happened, he felt like an idiot. I quietly left... There have been other instances where the papers and the TV news got the story completely wrong, so I don't put too much weight into what's being reported in the media. They don't always care to get the facts correct...

I watched the linked video. It seems to be a case in Toronto, not 'the High River case.' I'd be interested in the case you're referring to. Break and Enter? Criminal Conspiracy? Nuremburg? Hang their head in shame? Really?

As far as the video is concerned, you mention that the Detectives were out-of-line. I don't see that the Detectives did anything wrong? Magazines commonly store ammunition. Ammunition storage is regulated by law. The officer was in the performance of his duty and was within his rights to inquire into the location of the magazines. Why was the owner so reluctant to answer a reasonable question?

Like I said, this video doesn't outline the reason why the police were there and all of the facts that were known by the Detectives. There appears to be much more to it. Interesting that this guy had set-up a camera. This isn't something I'd normally do because a Police Officer came to check my firearms that were stored properly...

Nuremburg is stated as an example of "I was just doing my job and following orders" The detectives stating everything a privilege, is in conjunction with the" we can take it away from you" is a threat. When he stated they are stored off site, and in a legal fashion when it is not part of the reason to be there was out of scope. They were there to inspect Firearms of the restricted sort. once shown that , it should of been the end . But by them trying to extend their inquiry shows how they want to try to make it a blanket search. The wisdom of having a camera rolling is wise and i would of done the same.
And yes hang their heads in shame, they see that the personnel are out of line and when I question them about it, they say its wrong. Heres one the Robert Dziekanski case. You may have been in the law enforcement community but they still are. The facts they state in conjunction with the LAW shows what they were trying to do. as to criminal conspiracy Break enter theft in the High river case (d) every one who conspires with any one to commit an offence punishable on summary conviction is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

How did they target the houses they did, combined with the destruction of private property . why did they revisit houses multiple times. why did they not do these in each house? Why wasnt there detailed records of any property they removed . . Seems pretty fishy if you know how police love records except when they know they can get into trouble for it. Face it theres a lack of integrity in the RCMP upper leadership and it shows in many cases like these

Nuremburg is stated as an example of "I was just doing my job and following orders" The detectives stating everything a privilege, is in conjunction with the" we can take it away from you" is a threat. When he stated they are stored off site, and in a legal fashion when it is not part of the reason to be there was out of scope. They were there to inspect Firearms of the restricted sort. once shown that , it should of been the end . But by them trying to extend their inquiry shows how they want to try to make it a blanket search. The wisdom of having a camera rolling is wise and i would of done the same.
And yes hang their heads in shame, they see that the personnel are out of line and when I question them about it, they say its wrong. Heres one the Robert Dziekanski case. You may have been in the law enforcement community but they still are. The facts they state in conjunction with the LAW shows what they were trying to do. as to criminal conspiracy Break enter theft in the High river case (d) every one who conspires with any one to commit an offence punishable on summary conviction is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

How did they target the houses they did, combined with the destruction of private property . why did they revisit houses multiple times. why did they not do these in each house? Why wasnt there detailed records of any property they removed . . Seems pretty fishy if you know how police love records except when they know they can get into trouble for it. Face it theres a lack of integrity in the RCMP upper leadership and it shows in many cases like these

Jimbo,

It would seem that RCMP Officers made some errors in the High River case. As I've mentioned, I hadn't heard about this. My comments had nothing to do with Alberta and were restricted to the video provided.