Is this man hangin’ on for dear life, or what? Justice Minister Tyler Shandro explains at yesterday’s news conference how “law abiding firearms owners” won’t have to obey the law anymore, at least some of the time (Photo: Chris Schwarz, Government of Alberta).

Welcome to Alberta where you can now be a law-abiding citizen while defying the law!

Says who?

Says Tyler Shandro, minister of justice, who announced yesterday that the province will be taking over handling charges under the federal Firearms Act so people who violate the act but who our United Conservative Party Government thinks ought to be able to violate the act won’t be charged under the act when they violate it. 

You know, because they’re law-abiding firearms owners.

Surely this is something new and unique in the annals of justice? 

To put this another way, as Premier Danielle Smith did in the government’s press release headlined “Alberta takes back constitutional jurisdiction” (which isn’t what’s actually happening here, but never mind), our UCP Government is going to make Alberta safer by taking over enforcement of a federal gun safety law and not enforcing it.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, who thinks cozying up to the gun lobby is a winning strategy (Photo: Alberta Newsroom/Flickr).

Ms. Smith’s actual potted press-release quote: “As government, we do all we can to ensure the safety of Albertans. The federal government’s firearm ban does not stop illegal guns from crossing the border and making it into the hands of criminals. Instead of targeting criminals, the ban targets law-abiding firearms owners. Taking back Alberta’s constitutional jurisdiction and the authority to handle charges under the Firearms Act is one more way our province is pushing back against federal overreach.”

If you parse this paragraph, you will notice that each sentence isn’t really connected to the next one. 

It starts talking about public safety. Then it drops the subject of Ottawa’s new gun-safety rules (which a reasonable person could argue are unlikely to be effective) and instead makes the case that smuggling guns is a bigger threat (which may or may not be true). Then it says the law targets law-abiding gun owners (tautologically untrue, unusual in rhetoric). Then it says the government is pushing back against federal overreach – although whether this law is federal overreach has not been established. 

Are you confused? Don’t worry about it. You’re supposed to be. 

Anyway, it’s going to get even more confusing, and we’ll get to that in a minute. 

But first, here’s part of Mr. Shandro’s press release quote: “By taking back our constitutional jurisdiction, we are not only asserting Alberta’s rightful place in Confederation but also better serving Alberta’s law-abiding firearms community.”

Alberta “Chief Firearms Officer” Teri Bryant at yesterday’s newser (Photo: Alberta Newsroom/Flickr).

This contains an important point, although possibly not the one Mr. Shandro ought to be making if he values his political survival in his suburban Calgary riding. To wit: Since Ms. Smith became premier, the United Conservative Party has been completely captured by the Q-adjacent, anti-vaxx, anti-gun-control nuts of the Take Back Alberta political action committee. 

As such, the party is now taking a National Rifle Association line on gun control, so you bet the UCP is “better serving Alberta’s law-abiding firearms community.” It has, however, no more interest in serving Albertans concerned about public safety when it comes to guns that it did when it came to masking to prevent circulation of respiratory diseases or requiring health care workers to be vaccinated against infectious disease.

Ms. Smith and her apparent bosses at Take Back Alberta think this is a winning issue in Calgary. It’s said here that is far from certain. 

Be that as it may, Teri Bryant, Alberta’s “Chief Firearms Officer,” who was hired last year by then-premier Jason Kenney’s government to obstruct federal firearms laws, had a speaking part in this little drama too. “Having provincial jurisdiction to handle firearms offences makes sense and is in the best interests of Albertans’ rights and safety,” she said supportively in the news release, and more of the same in the news conference. 

You’ll notice the key factoid here that is not mentioned in the release, to wit, that the UCP Government will be directing Crown prosecutors not to enforce a law party leaders don’t agree with. 

Wait, wait! Said Mr. Shandro in response to a reporter’s question at his news conference: “There is no direction to prosecutors in these matters. There’s advice. There is no direction, and there should be no direction.” After all, he conceded, prosecutorial independence is constitutionally entrenched. 

But while insisting the province’s directives are mere advice, a mere protocol, he also said: “The protocol states that it will not be in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution of a charge of the possession of a banned firearm where the following factors exist: First, that the accused lawfully obtained the firearm or prohibited device before May first 2020. Second, that the firearm or prohibited device was reclassified as prohibited on May 1st, 2020. And then third, the accused has not been charged with any other offence in relation to the possession or use of that firearm.”

Of course it’s a freakin’ directive. 

And don’t forget, owners of guns declared illegal have until next October to turn them in, and be compensated for them.

Well, whether Ms. Smith, Mr. Shandro, Take Back Alberta and what’s left of the UCP like it or not, Ottawa can still lay charges under its own legislation if it chooses to.

That would probably suit Ms. Smith in her desire to pick fights with the federal government to the better to pursue her sovereignty-association agenda. 

Whether gun safety is the right hill to die on, metaphorically speaking, to pursue that agenda is another matter entirely. 

Mr. Shandro, meanwhile, sounded at times like a man who had an inkling he may be signing his own political death warrant. 

No doubt the federal government will get back to him in due course. 

Join the Conversation

36 Comments

  1. In due course, I thought for a second the recording was a loop. The link made me laugh so hard, I highly recommend it! Your writing is always a treat Dave, kudos.

  2. Yeah, this like most things Smith and the UCP does these days, is strange bordering on the absurd.

    One gets the feeling that the two smartest Calgary UCP MLAs were Kenney and Schweitzer who have already quit rather than continue on in the face of all the expected foolishness. Shandro’s talk about law abiding gun owners is bizarre and Orwellian. Just because one is not charged for a crime does not make them law abiding.

    I suppose we can have a debate about whether the Federal proposed law which is not yet enacted is good or not. In fact this debate is happening in Ottawa right now, so the proposed law may still change. Even more bizarre is if passed as is, this law will actually not come into effect until well after our scheduled provincial election. So Shandro’s response is quite premature, but I suppose he has been given his orders by boss Smith and he seems as always to relish confrontation.

    Yes, it is quite possible suburban Calgary voters might feel differently about this than Shandro, but he was also out of step with them in his approach to health care when he declared war on health care workers and even some of his neighbours. We can’t blame Smith for that one as it was before her time as Premier, but she did decide to keep him in an important role despite all his past shortcomings.

    Perhaps the UCP did not notice the recent Federal by election results in an Ontario suburban swing riding as this gun debate raged. It did not go well for the Federal Conservatives. If Smith and company do not read the room well, she might still yet achieve her sort of previously stated goal to reduce the UCP back to a sort of Wildrose rural rump.

    1. Suggest you do your homework, Dave. Not all the firearms enthusiasts you so gleefully downgrade come from a rural area. I sincerely doubt you have any idea just how many reside in Calgary and its many suburbs or for that matter, how many reside in the very area you live in. Just because your neighbour the doctor doesn’t wave his shotgun at you as he heads out to shoot some skeet or the optometrist doesn’t honk his horn on his way past your residence at 5 am to go hunting moose or deer. Point is Dave, you really have no idea of who or who isn’t a law abiding gun owner and even less of an idea how they would vote.

      1. What’s this guy even talking about?

        Where did David either denigrate firearms owners or refer to them as being rural? He did say he wasn’t so sure that this would be the issue that allows the UCP to win in Calgary, which has nothing to do with there being firearms owners in Calgary and everything to do with this not being the most important issue right now, what with a party of morons and sychophants in charge provincially.

        It looks like JWB’s reading comprehension isn’t so great. Also apparently David needed to be more overt, painfully so perhaps, in pointing out that if the gun law passes, regardless of its merit or usefulness, people who retain guns that are legally banned cannot be considered law-abiding because they would literally be breaking the law.

        Maybe JWB needs to crawl off his cross and wait for something to actually oppress him before he plays martyr; seriously, is he trying to be Jordan Peterson?

        1. Firstly Tyler, I appreciate fair debate and comment on my posts, that is what free speech is all about.
          Secondly, I do not appreciate derogatory rebuttal that insinuates my reading and comprehension skills are questionable. That falls into the realm of personal degradation.
          Lastly Tyler, I object to being misgendered. Suggest you learn some social etiquette before publicly posting again.
          JWB

  3. So, first, I’m not sure if that was a really long pause, or a frozen screen but with audio, or as stated, he saw that signature on a wall in front of him, or who was it that came into the room just then….???

    If you can’t follow the money, though with the NRA name being invoked, one can easily see crumb trails being left here, but that will wait for another day.

    So next stop: “timing” ..who/whom would stand to benefit from this announcement, which I think he said starts Jan 1st, but seemed to say to the reporter, immediately?? I was having trouble following his answers, partially due to the , how shall I say ” raucous ” crowd of reporters . So my question is, does this have anything to do with the group from Coutts, who have all of a sudden become vocal about wanting to get to trial, asap…..wait, what ?? Did they purchase their guns “legally ” before May , and how is Shandro’s new -advice to his prosecutors- going to affect their trial…so call me a sceptic, but something here just doesn’t sit right, and just whom is representing those,what I, imho, would call seditionists??Because it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if it was one of those Calgary groups that always seem to turn up like the proverbial bad penny ,where the freedumites are concerned…to lawyer up for them, you know pro bono ,because they are a not for profit “charity ” ,after all..,right?? And just because they can charter private planes to take them across Canada, coast to coast, well ,doesn’t that just make you feel all warm and fuzzy….it must be nice to be wanted….
    But hey, I could be totally off base on this, and Shandro really does care about all Canadians, that’s why he’s implementing this in Alberta, for the benefit of all law abiding Canadians…..Oh dear, now I’m getting all confused again…oh right, that’s all the gun toting, law abiding…. okay, got it.

    1. “Follow the money” is good advice. As long as we have a war on drugs, we are going to have handgun violence, motivated by profit and located primarily in the cities.

      Let’s focus on the guns that are designed to kill a lot of people quickly. Those are hand guns and semi-automatic and automatic rifles – ban them all. I see no reason to even worry about, or regulate, bolt-action hunting rifles/shot guns.

      The unintended consequence of this emotional 30 year campaign has been the creation and reinforcement of a black market in guns and the discrediting and dismantling of what was a very sensible and respected regulatory framework for firearms in Canada.

  4. Will Smith et al explain to those of us in B.C., who support gun control, how they plan on keeping those guns in Alberta. What is to prevent any of those “lawful” gun owners from brining those guns to another part of Canada and kill some one?
    What would happen if they failed to prosecte some one who contraved the federal law and then was angry and shot and killed, some one? Smith needs to understand something like that can not be “cured’ with an apology.

    The other issue which is of concern, what other laws will Ms. Smith and company decide they don’t want to prosecute or decide they will start prosecuting people for things UCP objects to. First thing which comes to mind is, “choice”. Perhaps they’ll decide, like some Americans that transgender children ought not to use specific bathrooms, the list goes on.

    If Smith and co. want to be exempt from Canadian law, they need to leave Canada and of course there would not be any transfer payment.

    If we are going to have a nation, with a federal government then we all need to be singing from the same song sheet. You don’t get to pick and choose as you go along and ignoring laws which you believe your political supporters don’t like.

    Is this a hill the federal government wants to die on? Not a good political move, but slowly but surely Ms. Smith needs to be made to understand what she is doing is a very bad move.

    1. If we are going to have a nation, with a federal government then we all need to be singing from the same song sheet. You don’t get to pick and choose as you go along and ignoring laws which you believe your political supporters don’t like.

      Hell will freeze over before Quebec gets on any song sheet but their own. Wake up and smell the coffee!

  5. Is our chief firearms officer a Laurentian elite because she attended Laurentian University? Did she hang out with the Calgary School in the faculty lounge? Am I glad that I had the foresight not to attend the University of Calgary, where I might have had this bougie group as my professors?

    Never mind. I learned everything I need to know about 21st century politics in Alberta from cartoons. Stay tuned for more adventures of Quick Draw McGraw Shandro and his sidekick Baba Looey Bryant.

    https://youtu.be/fxBOlLFz6NU

  6. To any reasonable person you state the facts without emotion but since many gun nuts have difficulty with reading comprehension, your delete button will be working overtime. As if you didn’t know.

  7. More grandstanding by the UCP. Also, the UCP are trying to emulate the USA, where there are so many senseless deaths with guns.

    1. Anyone who thinks any Albertan or the UCP Government wants to see the American version of gun culture emulated in Alberta is (ref: your statement) naive.

  8. This does create a wrinkle for the law abiding criminal set who are unwilling to acknowledge times changing. The federal government will compensate them financially if they surrender their gun by next October, or they can hold it past that date and hope that Shandro’s policy remains in effect in perpetuity.

    I cannot see an NDP government extending this protection (or a more reasonable Conservative government either, for that matter). At least, at this point, gun owners can wait until the May election and surrender their guns if the NDP prevails and still get compensation. Things will certainly be murkier if the UCP chooses to postpone the election until after the October deadline.

    Something law abiding criminals might consider too is that after the amnesty deadline, they will be stuck with a stranded asset. One of the qualifiers in Shandro’s non-directive is that the gun owner had to acquire the gun before May 1, 2020. Thus Shandro’s protection does not extend to a subsequent buyer of the gun, or anyone inheriting it after the owner’s death.

  9. There are legitimate criticisms of federal Bill C-21, which when first introduced was purely a form of handgun ban, but which has since been overburdened with Government amendments to try and implement a clumsy, confusing and controversial ban on “firearms designed for the battlefield” while preserving the ability of Canadians to possess firearms used for hunting. Now, to be clear, I absolutely favour a ban on assault weapons and similar firearms, but this bill is not the way to accomplish it. Many weapons “designed for the battlefield” have, historically, been repurposed for hunting, including such venerable military arms as the bolt-action Lee-Enfield and Ross rifles of the First World War.

    There has to be a simple way of determining what kind of weapons are inappropriate for ownership by civilians, and which are not, that will also survive the inevitable court challenges by clever criminal defence lawyers looking for loopholes. I think one absolutely necessary criterion for this evaluation should be whether the firearm is semi-automatic or fully automatic, versus bolt-, lever- or pump-action. Of course, many high-powered military sniper rifles, like the .50-cal. McMillan rifle famously used by PPCLI snipers in Afghanistan, are bolt-action, so that might not be an absolute cut point, but it’s a place to start.

    Nonetheless, no matter what happens in Parliament as this bill goes through its various stages of consideration, once its final version has been passed by both the House of Commons and the Senate, and has received Royal Assent, it will become the law of the land, and those that continue to possess banned firearms after the deadline date established in the legislation will be in breach of the law, and thus will no longer be able to call themselves “LAGOs” (law-abiding gun owners). And the courts have long established that firearms laws are 100% federal jurisdiction, meaning that Smith’s government has no business sticking its nose into it.

    But we already know that Daniellezebub’s ideas of the constitutional division of powers is, “what’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is mine too”.

  10. Shandro is wrong on really basic stuff. Section 92(14) of the Constitution Act gives the provinces the responsibilty for the administration of justice and the courts, but section 91(27) gives the feds jurisdiction over criminal law, including criminal procedure. The ability of provincial attorneys general to prosecute criminal offences is a valid delegation of federal power, not the other way around. This has been decided most notably in Attorney General of Canada v. Canadian National Transportation Limited [1983] 2 S.C.R. 206 (yup, 1983!). The case is on Canlii. Chief Justice Laskin wrote: “As a matter of language, there is nothing in s. 92(14) which embraces prosecutorial authority in respect of federal criminal matters. Section 92(14) grants jurisdiction over the administration of justice, including procedure in civil matters and including also the constitution, maintenance and organization of civil and criminal provincial courts. The section thus narrows the scope of the criminal law power under s. 91, but only with respect to what is embraced within “the Constitution, Maintenance, and Organization of Provincial Courts … of Criminal Jurisdiction”. By no stretch of language can these words be construed to include jurisdiction over the conduct of criminal prosecutions.”

    Every student is taught this in law school, but of course that doesn’t mean every lawyer has learnt it.

  11. Shandro, batshit crazy lady and the UCP are off their nut with this one – as usual.

    Once the feds enact the Bill, the vast majority of Albertans who identify strongly as law-abiding Canadians will in fact turn in their banned weapons.

    The only ones who won’t are the same .0001% who are criminal UCP supporting secessionists, schistosomiasis, white supremacist, nazis.

    There’s nothing to hear or see here except UCP grandstanding and useless political rhetoric. Let’s move on and protect the kids who are dying in hospitals.

  12. The upshot of Tyler Shandro’s non-directive is that people owning illegal guns will be encouraged to refrain from surrendering them, as they are legally required to do.

    I am pretty sure encouraging people to commit illegal acts is, in itself, illegal. Are Shandro & Smith engaging in criminal activity?

    As a lawyer, Shandro is also, I believe, prohibited from counselling an offense. Could Shandro be getting himself into more trouble with the law society?

    1. Bob: This strikes me as a pretty clear case of counselling to commit an offence. If a complaint to the Law Society didn’t result in a sanction for Mr. Shandro, what exactly is the point of that organization? DJC

  13. Finally doing their job. Making sure politically motivated laws forged in Ottawa dont impact Albertans.

    And yes, I find it funny the juxtaposition of law abiding you find so funny. Laws are made to help people live together.

    Politically motivated laws, which only utility is to provide a wedge issue for political gain, fails on the above metric.

    And again yes, these sorts of media characterizations matter. Here’s an interesting read on the failure of the media to provide freedom of speech:

    https://unherd.com/2022/12/what-i-discovered-at-twitter-hq/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups%5B0%5D=18743&tl_period_type=3&mc_cid=f564aad3e1&mc_eid=0971084916

    If you aren’t part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.

    1. Kinda sounds like you’re implying that only “good” laws deserve to be obeyed. I don’t know if you noticed, but Canada sent potsmokers to jail by their tens of thousands for decades on the basis of a bad law. If you stand up in court and tell the judge, “Your honour, the law was bad so defying it makes me good,” you are going to jail just like they did, and you are going to drive your attorney to drink. Well, drink more than is normal for an attorney, which is saying something. Funny how rates of drug abuse skyrocket when people are given unfulfilling and/or unethical jobs that are highly remunerative. (If you are an attorney who does ethical work, big stick-tap to you and I think it’s both outrageous and revealing how much of a pay cut that decision cost you).

      “Freedom of speech” (expression in Canada but whatevs) is the responsibility of the government, not the media. Consider that the govt can’t punish you for speaking your mind (except hate speech, sedition, fraud, libel, etc), but private companies can. Watch this – Justin Trudeau is a fart-sniffing pretty boy who can’t find his rear with both hands and a road map. … … … No consequences! I’m free to say it, and more, all I want!

      Justin Trudeau can’t silence you unless you break the law. Elon Musk can kick you off twitter anytime he wants, no matter how vapid his reasoning. Maybe the authoritarians we should be worried about are not in our government. Maybe they control large multinational corporations, and have more power than some governments, but less accountability than any government. If I was an authoritarian, I would way rather be a billionaire than a PM – when governments take our freedom we call it “tyranny,” when billionaires take our freedom we call it “business as usual.”

    2. Hey Bret: are not all laws politically motivated? How about the laws which give oil and gas companies impunity to take farm and ranch land away from its rightful owners to drill wells, lay pipelines and leave their toxic garbage for someone else to pay to clean up? How about yelling “fire” in a crowded theater or publishing pseudo-scientific rubbish that will result in thousands of unnecessary deaths? What would the great “free speech absolutists” say about that? That’s a rhetorical question. We know free speech does not extend to doxing Lord Musk. And that is a political decision too.

  14. O.F.F.S it’s Friday , so a summary of the last few weeks in Alberta politics can be summed up by Danielle’s choice of “campaign ” manager for the upcoming (fingers crossed) election, who comes to her via Leslyn Lewis ‘s successful campaign…well she do better than expected, soooooo..( was this the culmination of JK’s recruitment drive in Toronto, and for all her talk of JT’s pandering to “that ” Ontario crowd, that don’t understand Albertans, yes, well never mind, you didn’t understand what I meant…)

    So the strategy for Danielle, must be, if you can’t dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with the bull—- , So was this what Steve Outhouse was hired for…
    all I can say, is that after choking on my coffee, …this is just too perfect and I’m going to keep it in mind for the next few weeks.

    It’s time to get some baking done and I can’t do that if I’m upset or angry– so Time Out!!!

    To DJC ,and all the gang, I sincerely hope you all can take the time to have a good Xmas, I’m trying to be optimistic…Best wishes and Hope for the New Year….Cheers !!!! Stay safe!

    PS: Ranger, if you’re out there, we should have used the wood shed..hope you’re okay …

    1. Doing just fine Randi-lee. Thank you
      I’m off to sunnier climes. The political environment here is very opaque to me at present and I suspect that as it becomes more clear to me it will have all the warts and inconsistencies of most human endeavors. But the people have a much sunnier disposition and the community is very warm and inclusive; what’s not to like!
      From this very great distance I see dips**t Dani and pestilent and perverted Putin as one and the same kind and the social situation in Ukraine as only a year or two in advance of Albaturda.

      As distasteful as it is, it would have been much easier and less dramatic to have taken some of these low-life nut-job conservatives out to the woodshed for some lessons in social harmony.

  15. Great article. I watched the linked video and have to say, that was one of the most pathetic performances by any politician in any jurisdiction I have ever seen. It’s a shame you can’t shame the shameless. Anyone here ever seen Inside Job? I would love to believe some shadowy conspiracy’s robot replacement for an elected politician just malfunctioned. That would be much less revolting than watching a real human behave that way.

  16. I am baffled by the rationale for much of what the UCP is doing. Some of it might play well in parts of rural Alberta, but that suggests they have a genuine concern about losing votes to the right. Nothing about the WIP seems to indicate that they constitute much of a threat to the UCP, and the current UCP IS the Wildrose party (pretty much so where is the logic here? They have much more to worry about in terms of losing seats in Calgary, Banff/Kananaskis, Lethbridge, and in the wider region around Edmonton.

    Seems to me a more valid strategy would be:
    1) Point out that the economy is doing pretty well right now, and there is a large surplus (without admitting it could vanish double quick if some geopolitic things change)
    2) Harp on about the parts of the NDP government record that are easy to criticize, like the rapidly accumulating debt, the messed up launch of the farm safety bill, the carbon tax, and so on.
    3) Present the facade of a kinder, gentler UCP that wants to deliver for the people of the province
    4) Make token genuflections to the shrine of environmentalism.

    What am I missing? Why are they behaving this way?

  17. How to prevent a whole bunch of gun violence without impacting “law-abiding gun owners” (LAGOs) – ban people convicted of domestic violence (DV) from owning guns. Including Police officers, whose spouses face statistically alarming rates of DV**.

    First, protecting the public – 2/3 of mass shootings either involve DV or are committed by someone with a known past involving DV*. Mass shootings directly involving DV have a higher fatality rate than those that do not. Therefore, taking guns away from people with a past of DV is in the public interest because it will reduce both the frequency and the severity of mass shootings.

    Second, protecting LAGOs – DV is illegal. Therefore, once you have committed DV you are no longer “law-abiding.” Therefore, legislation restricting people with a record of DV from owning firearms does not impact “LAGOs” anymore than legislation preventing bank robbers from owning firearms would.

    Politically, this seems very workable. The logic seems sound and evidence-based. If someone objects to it and you want to play dirty you can attack with something like “why do you want wife beaters to have guns so badly?” It seems to bypass the many criticisms (some of which are valid) of firearm bans in general. Circle squared!
    *https://efsgv.org/press/study-two-thirds-of-mass-shootings-linked-to-domestic-violence/
    **give it a google, this is quite well known in most communities and has been for a long time

  18. Hmmmm…. could a well known “lefty” or “libtard” receive different prosecutorial action in Alberta than say Jason Nixon? Just asking…

  19. Policy that is designed specifically to appeal to the emotions will always be bad policy. When that same policy is designed around a moral panic and disingenuous distortions it is extremely suspect on all counts. Ideological tribalism and loyalties should not supercede the available facts. So, for example

    “FIRST READING: All the verifiable untruths Liberals have told about their gun ban: The push for Bill C-21 has featured an awful lot of Liberal MPs saying things that are extremely not true”

    https://nationalpost.com/opinion/untruths-liberals-gun-ban

    “After every headline-grabbing (but extremely rare) gun murder spree, the media are filled with emotional calls for more restrictions on firearms. Rather than analysing the facts, the media amplify the emotion, in most cases taking it for granted that more gun control is needed.
    The same applies to much of the professoriate that interests itself in firearms: facts and logic are absent. THERE IS NO compelling evidence that gun control legislation is effective at reducing violent crime or suicide. It may appear hard to believe given the inundation of media stories.”

    “The Failure of Gun Control (Again)”

    https://www.dorchesterreview.ca/blogs/news/the-failure-of-gun-control-again

    The New Zealand experience is instructive as it is certainly a fair harbinger for the unfolding development and trajectory of the Canadian political foolery. That is [All things that negatively impact the desired political messaging and political PR campaign will be studiously avoided, as usual. Meaning that it would be ‘bad’ for ‘optics’, i.e., “the aspects of an action, policy, or decision (as in politics or business) that relate to public perceptions.”] :

    “I think the major shortcoming of the gun buyback scheme is that it’s failed to get illegal firearms out of New Zealand and away from gangs and gangs don’t voluntarily give up their firearms,” said National leader Christopher Luxon.”

    “Each day there’s serious firearm crime and it’s up at record highs. It’s never been this high for over a decade. And so there’s a real need for us to fundamentally say, how do we get hold of those illegal guns and get them off gangs and therefore lower gun crime in New Zealand?”

    https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2022/04/how-effective-were-the-government-s-gun-law-changes-and-buyback-scheme.html

    “The government’s clampdown on firearms and seizures of high-powered semi-automatic weapons has had no impact on a rise in gun crime and violence in New Zealand.”

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/438377/rise-in-gun-crime-despite-government-clampdown-after-terror-attack

    The neo-liberal ideal of the perfectly safe, trauma free society is a crude mirage built upon the idea that one can design fair utopias for cattle, or sheep as long as those same ‘utopias’ are managed from very high above, with the ‘managers’ safely apart from the managed.; where, coercion and the absolute use of force and legitimized violence is ideally monopolized by the State. The failures are ‘shocking’:

    “Japan’s tight gun laws add to shock over Abe’s assassination”

    https://apnews.com/article/shinzo-abe-shooting-japan-gun-control-0ab2e5afccf89fe71b8d594e4a4ad1cc

    Noting that, “Where there’s a will there’s a way is a proverb that means if someone is determined to do something, he will find a way to accomplish it regardless of obstacles.”

    Finally, it has been theorized that the rise of and the very sustainability of democratic governments was made possible by the wide availability of cheap to obtain, easy to use weapons systems, making everyone relatively equal in the arena of power relations in the sense that it becomes difficult for any minority faction in a society to force the majority of a population to yield to the rule of that same minority, that is ; where, force is decentralized and not monopolized.

  20. I’m a huge advocate for ‘law-abiding’ gun owners, and I believe that it’s my responsibility to do everything in my power to ensure that they are able to legally possess and use firearms without having to worry about any unnecessary government interference. I want to make sure that gun owners are able to enjoy the same freedoms and privileges that all other Americans are afforded and that they are not discriminated against because of their choice to own and responsibly use a firearm. This is why I’m doing everything in my power to ensure that ‘law-abiding’ gun owners are not punished or targeted for simply following the law. I’m committed to fighting for the rights of gun owners and ensuring that they are treated fairly and equally when it comes to gun legislation and regulations.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.