The firearms community has lost many battles as the culture war between rural and urban Canada rages. C-68 is an excellent means for political parties to accentuate this war and to appeal to the big cities with growing populations. It seems no major political party wants to be stuck with the dwindling number of votes from rural Canada. Therefore, the Conservative govt.'s. actions have not been that favourable to the firearms community. This party readily enforces the Liberals' C-68 and has confiscated more firerarms from Canadians than any govt. in Canadian history. Provincially, the rural supported Sask party "accepts" the Conservative's "licensing regime" while it too sets its eyes on the large city votes. Both parties support mandatory firearms owner licensing, an individual property rights issue in addition to many others. Mr. Harper said, "licensing is cost effective." Cost effective for his govt. to disarm the firearms community and without compensation. Over 15 years the federal govt. has located only 2 million of the 5 million Canadian gun owners and merely 7 million of their 16.5 million or more firearms. Finding the remaining guns and unlicensed firearms owners is challenging even with the lure of Mr. Harper extending an amnesty.

We've learned that we can not fight this war in the courts using Mr. Trudeau's Charter of Rights because many of our most significant rights we've inherited from England have been severely altered and/or deleted from this document. Still, we are entitled to our rights from these early parts of our constitution; the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, John Locke's Second Treatise and Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England. But, our courts too many times, permit the govts. of the day to trample our liberties. Remember, civil rights can never be revoked.

Such organizations as the Canadian Professional Police Association, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, some health associations, some women's groups, the Coalition for Gun Control, the major political parties and the Canadian Bar Association (CBA) have all unfairly shifted the blame of gun violence and the criminal misuse of firearms upon innocent, responsible Canadians who own firearms.

The significance of the CBA's antigun stance since 1972 may become one of the most onerous problems we have to face. There has been long-held unsubstantiated feelings within the firearms community that the scales of the Canadian justice system were weighing against it. However, there was no tangible evidence that widespread legal unfairness was actively propagated towards them from within the justice system until May 26, 2010. It was then that the CBA presented their three page Letter to Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, "Re: Bill C-391 - Repeal of Long-Gun Registry" to Garry Breitkreuz, M.P., Chair, Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. The CBA volunteered this information exposing themselves as to the extent and duration of their conspiracy against the Canadian firearms community.

No major political party expresses a desire to repeal C-68. In addition, the judicial system has tarnished its own image of fairness losing the trust of the firearms community. A community whose expectation to an impartial legal counsel, a fair-minded judge and a neutral court has became a reasonable doubt.

Thomas Jefferson once said "I consider Trial by Jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution". Here Jefferson described a solution to the firearms community's dilemma as well as its problem. The jury is powerful in preserving our freedoms, for without its consent the government may punish no person and all its unjust laws and oppressive application of those laws are of no effect. Trial by jury is the final legal check on tyranny and thus a symbol of and a prevention for losing our free society. In addition, "jurors have always had the ability to ignore the judge, ignore the law and acquit. Jury nullification serves as an important check on government power." (University of Alberta law professor Sanjeev Anand ...Edmonton Sun January 15, 2006)

In Canadian law a juror or a jury may nullify a law if they wish. Many precedents date back to the times Henry Morgentaler was acquitted by several juries for performing abortions. Abortion procedures were illegal at the time but accepted by the local communities. They did not ask the judge, the prosecutor or any lawyer involved with the trial whether they had this right. As a juror, don't ask the judge, prosecutor or any lawyer involved with the trial whether you have this right. As officers of the court these people have a duty to divert and deceive you from jury nullification. Therefore, the juries used their right to nullify the law and acquitted Morgentaler in spite of the abortion law.

If you are in jury deliberations concerning members of the firearms community, acquit and keep acquitting until the rest of the jury stops trying to change your mind. It only takes one brave juror to nullify a gun law. "If the jury wants to disbelieve any piece of evidence, it's entitled to do that. That's the basis of the power of jury nullification." University of Alberta law professor Sanjeev Anand, Calgary Sun, Nov. 16, 2010.

Legal challenges to the licensing aspect of the Firearms Act.

1. (a) Ontario, Bruce and Donna Montague v. Her Majesty The Queen, going to Court of Appeal of Ontario, Feb. 18, 2009.--- lost appeal. Applied for leave to appeal to Supreme Court of Canada ---appeal denied no reasons provided, Bruce is serving time in Thunder Bay . Write to him: http://www.brucemontague.ca/html/0407.html

(b) On September 23, 2010 the Montagues received a letter from the office of the Attorney General of Ontario resuming proceedings to confiscate their property as "proceeds of crime."

http://brucemontague.ca/html/index.html

2. (a) Sask., Edward Burke Hudson v. The Attorney General of Canada, lost at Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan. Appliedfor leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada---appeal denied no reasons provided

(b) November 09, 2010, Edward Burke Hudson v. The Attorney General of Canada, --- constitutional appeal presentation of Criminal Code section 117.03 before The Honourable Mr. Justice R.C. Mills of the Court of Queen's Bench in Saskatoon. Justice Mills 'reserved judgement' and promised a written decision.

http://www.cufoa.ca

Nipawin Fish & Game League
Chair Firearms Committee

Joe Gingrich