Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Author Topic: The National Police Federation issues position statement opposing May 1 gun ban  (Read 862 times)


  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1639
  • Any River... Any Time....

The National Police Federation issues position statement opposing May 1 gun ban

The National Police Federation is the sole, certified bargaining agent for the RCMP, representing over 20,000 members nation-wide. The National Police Federation is the largest Police Association in Canada and the second largest in North America. Learn more about their association at

“Costly and current legislation, such as the Order in Council prohibiting various firearms and the proposed 'buy-back' program by the federal government targeted at legal firearm owners, does not address these current and emerging themes or urgent threats to public safety.

It also does not address:

• criminal activity,
• illegal firearms proliferation,
• gang crime,
• illegal guns crossing the border or
• the criminal use of firearms.

In fact, it diverts extremely important personnel, resources, and funding away from addressing the more immediate and growing threat of criminal use of illegal firearms."

Apparently this same Federation has also put the Trudeau government on notice to the effect they may well refuse to enforce the OIC prohibitions.


  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1639
  • Any River... Any Time....

RCMP Union’s Pete Merrifield Comments

Pete Merrifield, vice president of the National Police Federation, the RCMP labour union, discusses urging Canada’s government to help police stop violent gangs instead of seizing guns from federally licensed owners and stores.

I understand that it’s a very emotional debate on both sides of the issue in this country, but we need to take politics out of it and focus on the shared interest of public safety by addressing the crime problem.

Bill Blair Says Mass Gun Confiscations Won’t Be Run By Police

Bill Blair, Canada’s minister for the mass gun confiscations against hunters, farmers and sport shooters, said this week it’s too expensive and inefficient for police to run the seizures. He didn’t say who will.

The growing grassroots, political and police rejection of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s plans mean he will almost certainly fail.


  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1639
  • Any River... Any Time....

Court Win: Judge Sides With Gun Owner on ‘Nullification’ Notices

Court finds RCMP “nullification” tactic has no basis in law, offering new hope for 68,000 Canadians to request Section 74 hearings.

1 Dec 2020 — An Alberta court sided with a gun owner fighting the federal government and federal police’s regulatory attacks, marking a significant procedural win for the rights of Canadian hunters, sport shooters and firearm collectors.

Judge finds “nothing” in law to support RCMP’s July 20 “nullification” trap.
Ruling allows Section 74 hearing challenging “nullification” to proceed, rejecting Liberal-RCMP efforts to block it.
Decision restores due process and offers new hope for 68,000 targeted gun owners who may decide to request Section 74 hearings.

Hello Section 74

Justice Allan Fradsham’s 15-page ruling for Ryan Stark yesterday in Calgary allows Stark to proceed with a hearing under Section 74 of the Firearms Act, as he fights to assert his legal rights and keep his guns.

Fradsham found no basis in law for the RCMP Registrar of Firearms’ “nullification” of firearm-registration certificates, a regulatory trap invented to criminalize honest citizens and confiscate their property.


“Nothing in the Firearms Act says that the Registrar can ‘nullify’ a registration certificate or declare it to be ‘no longer valid,’” Fradsham said in his ruling.

“The only power available to the Registrar the exercise of which would render the registration certificates ‘nullified’ and ‘no longer valid’ is the power of revocation,” the decision said.

The RCMP failed to obey procedures for revocation, the ruling said.

Dunn: ‘Clarify and Challenge’

“It is under that he filed a Section 74 application to clarify and challenge the legal effect of the ‘nullification’ notice,” Stark’s lawyer, Greg Dunn of Dunn & Associates, told today by telephone.

First Win

The case is the first win for Canada’s 2.2 million RCMP-approved firearm users against the governing Liberal Party and Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s May 1 attacks.

The confiscators worked to block Stark’s Section 74 hearing in provincial court, and are still trying to stop more than 120 similar cases across the country. They’re also working to defeat seven challenges in Federal Court.

Stark and hundreds of thousands of others still risk jail under the Liberal-RCMP crackdown unless they surrender their suddenly blacklisted rifles and shotguns to the police by 30 April 2022.

RCMP Comment

The RCMP has said the “nullifications” aren’t revocations and aren’t eligible for a Section 74 review.

“As this matter is currently before the courts, it would be inappropriate for the RCMP to comment at this time,” Catherine Fortin, a spokeswoman for the Ottawa-based RCMP, told today.

David Shiroky was the lawyer for the confiscators.

New Hope

The procedural victory offers new hope for the 68,000 gun owners who the RCMP specifically targeted with its unprecedented “nullification” trap.

They may decide to apply for hearings that some courts had blocked, even though the 30-day limit to apply has passed.

‘Everyone Has the Right to Due Process’

Dunn, who is also mounting a constitutional challenge by J.R. Cox of The Shooting Edge, said “everyone who receives one of these ‘nullification’ notices ultimately would have the benefit of a firearms reference hearing under Section 74 of the Firearms Act.”

“That means everyone has the right to appeal, everyone has the right to due process,” said Dunn. “That was ultimately what the government wanted to avoid, having thousands of these references in court.”

The case is: Attorney-General for Canada v Stark, 2020 ABPC 230