Wednesday, September 20, 2006
4. The Aims of NFA are:
4.1. to promote, support, and protect
all safe recreational firearms activities,
4.2. to promote, support, and protect
all educational firearms activities,
promote natural justice for all firearms activities, and
serve and inform responsible owners and users of recreational
four aims are the basis of the NFA. They define how and where the NFA
can spend money, and on what. They allow the NFA to operate in many
areas, doing many things--for your benefit. We support court cases,
supply expertise, and send expert witnesses under 4.3 whenever
someone is in trouble with our abusive C-68 gun control system. We do
a lot of educating under 4.2, a lot of political pushing under 4.1,
and a lot of publishing on paper and the internet under 4.4.
So What Do We Have the National Firearms Association For?
is a personal letter from your National President to you:
I was a prime mover in setting up the National Firearms Association.
In the years since, the NFA has pursued clear aims and helped many
thousands of firearm owners. From 1984 to 2006, firearms laws became
steadily more abusive. More and more people who had done nothing that
anyone would see as wrong were charged with criminal offences due to
poor paperwork skills.
gained a formidable reputation for legal expertise, and many lawyers
now routinely call the NFA when they get a case involving a firearm.
client is charged with careless storage of a firearm in his car."
He's not guilty."
you don't understand. He put his shotgun in the trunk, forgot about
it, and the car hasn't moved for six months."
don't understand. It is not possible
to store a
firearm in anything with wheels. At all times, the firearm was being
in an unattended vehicle.' There is a regulation
covering that, and no storage regulation applies in this case. There
are regulations covering transport and regulations covering storage.
They're different, so only one set of regulations can apply. In this
case, it is the transport regulations."
car wasn't locked."
okay, as long as they don't change the charge before the trial. He
violated a transport regulation by not locking the car--but that's
not what he's charged with, so he's innocent."
Dave, does doing this ever make your head hurt?"
Take another case. The client was charged with possession of a
'prohibited weapon'--a snub-nosed .38 revolver--under Criminal Code
section 91(2). I briefed the lawyer, and when the charge was read,
she popped up and asked the judge for an immediate dismissal of the
case, because a 'prohibited weapon' cannot be a firearm. The judge
dismissed the case."
remember a case from the mid-1980s. The client had a deactivated
.50-calibre Browning machine gun (a DEWAT) set up in his living room.
He was charged with possession of a prohibited weapon (prohibited
be firearms until 1998), so I sent an affidavit
explaining that a deactivated firearm was not a "firearm"
weeks later, he called again. The police had gone to Customs and
asked if .50-calibre Brownings had ever been legally imported into
Canada. The Customs officers confidently said Customs would never
have allowed one in, so they laid a new charge of smuggling the gun
another affidavit, explaining how many .50-calibre Brownings were
taken from the bellies of Canadian CF-100 jet fighters and Canadian
CF-86 Sabre jet fighters, and older Canadian F-51 Mustang piston
fighters--and sold to scrap dealers who recycled them to dealers, who
recycled them to collectors.
finally dropped the charges, and gave him back his deactivated war
trophy (that's what DEWAT stands for). I received an ecstatic letter
from the young collector, and it included this: "When all those
cops burst into my home, I was terrified. They were totally out of
control, very excited, guns in their hands... I don't know what
they would have done if they had found the other six Browning .50s in
kept our courtroom activity quiet, because doing so let the Crown
prosecutors think that when they lost a case it was just because they
had run into a smart lawyer. Now they have figured out where the
"smart" is coming from (it took them only 22 years!), so
we're coming out into the open. We can and will change the face of
Canadian law--one court case at a time!
government also needs a lesson regarding the strength and commitment
of the firearm community, so the NFA is going to teach you how to use
in H___ is a letterstorm?"
It is a
very powerful technique for impressing politicians. Every letter you
send to a Minister in Ottawa is counted as the voice of 500 angry
you're going to be a politician for a moment. A 200-letter
letterstorm lands on your desk. How many angry voters does that
times 500... my God, that's 100,000 angry voters! I bet any
politician would pay attention to that
I. This year, the NFA is going into high gear. We finally have a
friendly (but somewhat reluctant) government to work with. We're
going into massive recruitment. We're going to be the most powerful
political force this country has seen in years. We're going to bury
them in letterstorms. We're going to beat the crap out of the
firearms control bureaucrats in the courts. We're going to change the
face of Canada by changing the abusive laws we've been living under.
do a lot here at national headquarters, but we can't do things alone
We need your help and support, which we thank you for. The latest
fundraising effort was very successful, and many of you are already
responding to our request that you write to Ministers and the Prime
Minister. Together, you out there across Canada and we here in the
office, we can move mountains.
this carefully, and THINK about it. I often ask you to write a
personal letter to Stephen Harper, PM, Vic Toews, Minister of
Justice, and Stockwell Day, Minister of Public Safety
address is House of Commons, OTTAWA ON, K1A 0A6
, and you don't
even have to put a stamp on the letter.
1991, just one person had a very powerful effect just by being
persistent. By constantly telling Kim Campbell that the news media
were totally in favor of more severe gun control, he managed to push
her into enacting the severe gun control law of 1991.
the advantage of a media that had never seen the effect of severe gun
control legislation. You have the advantage that it has now been
conclusively proved that severe gun control laws do not reduce
violent crime levels--they increase them. They do that by taking
firearms away from law-abiding firearm owners, and taking no guns
away from any criminal. They do that by giving to every violent
criminal a government guarantee of his personal safety while he is
committing any type of violent crime. Every criminal knows that his
victim believes he cannot legally use a firearm for the purpose of
protecting human life from criminal violence--but the criminal can
and does use firearms to commit crimes.
can have the same power, because every letter you write is counted in
Ottawa as the voice of 500 angry voters. You
you know how to apply it.
gun control laws do not bother violent criminals, who just ignore
them. If a criminal is willing to violate the laws that forbid rape,
robbery, and/or murder, why on earth would anyone be stupid enough to
think he can be deterred or controlled by a gun control law?
we had severe gun control laws, we had practically no drive-by
shootings, no bar shootings, no home invasion criminals smashing
their way into occupied homes. Now, criminals who trust the
government guarantee of their own safety commit all those crimes, and
are for more than just sport. Governments and anti-gun people have
been claiming for years that we do not need
they are "just for sport, and no one needs
is pushing the new Conservative government to actually issue
concealed carry permits to women in danger. That is a first step
toward sensible gun control laws--and it's a big one. We can get this
--and more beyond--if you will write letters to our three target
Ministers and will keep on writing them.
One of our prime
objectives in demanding this is to force recognition that possession
of a firearm can mean the difference between death through criminal
violence and a criminal being arrested by his proposed victim. Yes,
happen! And does
, in countries with
other major firearms organizations in Canada say we cannot get this,
so they refuse to ask for it. I have news for them--very old
news--"You cannot get anything you don't ask
of Canadian governments have brainwashed Canadian voters. The voters
have been taught to leave protection of human life from criminal
violence to the police--who cannot and do not arrive until the crime
has been completed and the criminal has departed. That is not a
criticism of the police, it is a result of the fact
victim cannot call police until the criminal departs. If the victim
is dead, the police will arrive even later.
women are physically weaker than most of the criminals who attack
them. That's not a criticism, it's just a fact. There is a difference
between the force that he can apply and the force that she can apply.
crime is being committed, there is usually no one there but the
criminal and the victim. If the victim cannot protect her own life
from his criminal violence, she will be nothing but another bad
she is able to call the police after he has
departed, the police will begin a long and often difficult tail
chase. They may or may not catch up with the criminal.
you, I have been disappointed to see that the new government is not
taking the new problems of Canada seriously. It is trying to maintain
the status quo, to not rock the boat. Politically, that's working--my
daily paper told me today that if an election is held, the
Conservatives will win a majority of the seats in the federal
Parliament. What it is not doing is ensuring the safety of Canadian
women. This government's behaviour, so far, is not a solution to the
problem of escalating criminal violence in our society. That
solution, if the Conservatives have one in mind, has been deferred,
probably for a year or more.
an interim solution for a woman who believes that she is in danger?
Yes, there is, but it is a dangerous solution. In our article,
" (Canadian Firearms Journal
Vol. XVI, No. 1), the NFA stated its belief that it is (or should be)
illegal to convict a woman of possession of a firearm without a
registration certificate and/or without a firearms licence. In our
article, "Protecting Human Life From Criminal Violence
Vol. XV, No. 6), the NFA explained the rules for
using force to protect human life from criminal violence legally
woman has read both those articles, she will know that she can
apparently carry a handgun (apparently
breaking any valid law. These defences have not been tested in a
court of law, but several such cases have been dealt with by NFA
assistance and advice. In each case, the charge has been dropped.
That apparently happened because few Crown prosecutors want to be the
person responsible when a major section of the Criminal Code is
voided, when it is blown clear out of the law by having one or more
sections of the Criminal Code struck down by a judge.
guarantee that this defence will work. Too much depends on exactly
which judge and which Crown prosecutor handles the case, and which
jury hears it. I can say that it has worked (causing the charge to be
dropped before it even got into court) ten times so far. However, a
dropped charge sets no precedent that we can bring up in a later
court case. It is legally useless.
situation murky and confused? It certainly is. I can say this much:
if a woman (or a man, for that matter) is charged with carrying a
handgun illegally, or even using one to protect human life from
criminal violence, there are apparently valid defences. What will
happen in a court of law when those defences are finally presented
(by the lawyer acting for the accused) is not predictable--but a "not
guilty" verdict is distinctly probable.
personal knowledge, I know that a couple of female Crown prosecutors
are carrying concealed handguns on a daily basis, including into
court, to protect human life from criminal violence. The law appears
to say that what they are doing is illegal, but they value their
lives. They do not agree that women should be defenceless.
only a slight chance that what they are doing will be detected and
they will be charged. There is a good chance that if what they are
doing is detected, and they are charged, that the NFA information
will result in their being found "not guilty," and the law
being struck down. Their bet on the NFA defence is reasonable,
especially because Canadian juries are very reluctant to condemn a
woman who was only protecting human life from criminal violence. That
is true for nearly all women in such circumstances.
are a woman, should you be carrying a handgun "illegally"?
I can't answer that. I can say: "Don't do it if you are going to
carry it while drunk or stoned. Don't do it if you have an
uncontrollable temper." If you do
decide to do it, be
prepared to be caught. Be prepared with your defences. Do NOT
explain what happened until you have your lawyer's advice, and do not
answer any police questions
. Note that many lawyers have very
poor knowledge of firearms and protection of human life from criminal
violence laws, as they rarely come up. Talk to the NFA before
making any major decisions
. You have a right
and you are a fool if you give up that right. More people are
convicted by way of a statement made to police, or police questions
that they answered, than for any other reasons.
are in trouble over any matter involving firearms, call
1-780-439-1394 or email firstname.lastname@example.org
you say anything to the police. Even lawyers can err in
handling such a case, because so few lawyers have the depth of
experience that the NFA office does. We can help, and we do--at no
charge, under 4.3.