Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
What started as a discussion of Bill C-21 and the banning of Airsoft guns and municipal handgun bans evolved into a podcast that can only be described as absolutely essential listening for every firearms owner.
Please listen and if you agree, share widely so others can hear as well.
This highly informative episode of the Silvercore Podcast details exactly how firearms owners can shift the narrative and effect positive change which will prosper everyone regardless of what side of the firearms debate they find themselves. Dan Fritter, owner of Calibre Magazine, Ryan Steacy, director of IBI Barrels and Travis Bader of Silvercore Training share insight acquired from years of working in the firearms industry.
https://internationalbarrels.com
Topics discussed in this episode:
Explore these Resources
In this episode, we mentioned the following resources which may be beneficial to you:
Follow us:
Follow our Host
Learn More about Silvercore
The Silvercore Podcast explores the mindset and skills that build capable people. Host Travis Bader speaks with hunters, adventurers, soldiers, athletes, craftsmen, and founders about competence, integrity, and the pursuit of mastery, in the wild and in daily life. Hit follow and step into conversations that sharpen your edge.
Kind: captions
Language: en-GB
I'm Travis Bader
and this is The
Silvercore Podcast.
Join me as I discuss
matters related to
hunting, fishing,
and outdoor pursuits
with the people in
businesses that comprise
of the community.
If you're a new to
Silvercore, be sure to
check out our website,
www.Silvercore.ca where
you can learn more
about courses, services,
and products we offer.
As well as how you can
join The Silvercore Club,
which includes 10 million
in North America wide
liability insurance, to
ensure you are properly
covered during your
outdoor adventures.
Before we get rolling
with this episode, I'd
like to do a little bit
of housecleaning and to
that end, I would like
to remind everybody
that if they're enjoying
The Silvercore Podcast,
if they like what they
hear, let us know, leave
a comment, click like,
subscribe, tell your
friends, you can find
The Silvercore Podcasts
on all major podcast
providers out there.
We're also on YouTube
and you can find us
social media and speaking
about different social
media platforms, we're
also on clubhouse now,
so if Silvercore Club
members are interested
partaking in a live
podcast on clubhouse.
We'd asked for two
things; number one,
let us know, number
two, let us know
how to use clubhouse
so we can do this.
Now without further ado,
today I'm joined by the
director of directions
for International
Barrels, the makers
of high quality
premium grade rifle
barrels, Ryan Steacy.
How's it going?
Ryan, welcome back to
The Silvercore Podcast.
Thanks.
As well, we've got the
publisher and owner of
Calibre Magazine, Calibre
Magazine's going into
its 10th year producing
Canadian firearms
content, top drawer,
premium quality magazine.
If you're a member of
some organizations,
I believe the CSSA is
one of them, you will
already be getting
the Calibre Magazine.
Thank you for joining us
today, Daniel Fritter.
Hey Travis, long
time no talk.
Yeah, it has been
a while, hasn't it?
Yeah, I mean, it's been
like years, man, when I
was going down there and
dropping off magazines
back in the day.
I remember that.
In fact, right, we're
talking off air here,
but our first meeting
happened right here
in the podcast studio,
that was my office.
Before we turned into
the podcast studio.
Yeah.
And for those that
are listening to maybe
not know, Silvercore,
obviously based at
a Delta and Calibre
started up based out
of Delta as well.
And our office was,
I think about 10
minutes away from
your guys's office.
And about 12 minutes
away from the brewery,
that's down the street
from your guys's office.
Yes, good times.
I need one of
those near IBI.
Yes, you do.
Hey, you talk to
those Four Winds guys
around the corner from
Travis' place, they
make some good beer.
Well, I'm really
glad to be able to
be chatting with you
again here, Daniel.
It's bill C-21
particularly that
kind of got us talking
offline here, and
then we thought.
You know, you've got
some pretty good insight.
You're a sharp cookie,
you're a smart guy,
you got some good
insight that I figured
that The Silvercore
Podcast listeners
would like to hear.
And Ryan and I are
both affiants on
the order in council
firearms prohibition
and have a little bit
of insight from that
perspective; providing
the court's information
so that they can make
the best available
decision with all the
information available.
And I guess.
You know, Dan, you
were, you spoke at the
Senate about bill C-71.
So I'm going to have
to throw in a big
old disclaimer at
the front of this.
None of us are lawyers,
but we're going to spend
some time just sort
of openly discussing
different ideas,
different viewpoints
in regards to some of
the recent legislation,
policy regulations that
have been coming down
the pipe, and then we'll
just see it from a few
different perspectives
and see if we can kind of
get ourselves caught up
on, up to where C-21 is.
Sounds good.
Well, I mean to take
it back to C-71, I
think, you know,
the problems there.
Uh, I mean, as you
said, we're none of
us are lawyers, but
Ian Runkle is one.
I think we've all seen a
lot of his content and,
uh, I think we can all
probably say with some
degree of confidence that
the people responsible
for drafting this bill,
maybe weren't the best
of lawyers, if they
were lawyers at all.
Um, or conversely, you
know, cause I'm, I'm
aware that there will
be some lawyer out there
that works for the crown
that may watch this and
goes, wow, that Dan guys'
a dick, I worked really
hard, but that other guy.
He sucked!
He wouldn't give
me any lee way.
Um, cause I think that's
probably closer to
the truth is, uh, with
C-21, I mean I've done
a video already, but for
those that don't know,
my personal attitude is
that, um, it comes down
to a scheduling conflict.
Cause this bill was
introduced, I haven't
checked the calendar as
of right now, but we're
still in the latter
half of the month.
So it should be
sitting months.
So for those that don't
know the parliamentary
calendar for the house
of commons, generally
they seat, or they
sit half the month.
Uh, it's typically
been the last
half of the month.
Um, and before
everyone says, Oh,
lazy parliamentarian,
they're actually very
hardworking people,
even some of the liberal
MPS are incredibly
hardworking individuals
that serve their
constituents very well.
And to do so that
requires spending time
in their constituency.
So they spend half their
time back home and half
the time in Ottawa.
So it makes total sense.
Um, but that means
that they only get
half the time to
actually do government
business in Ottawa.
They can't vote or debate
or have parliamentary
procedure progress
without the parliament
actually sitting.
And obviously even
with these weird hybrid
sessions that they're
having the calendars,
the calendar, they
can't take days out
of that calendar.
It's actually part
of the way the
parliament is managed.
When Justin Trudeau
announced C-21, there was
only 55 days left in the
parliamentary calendar.
Um, There's less
than we're into the
forties now, I think.
Um, so it's dwindling.
They said that second
reading is going to
happen sometime later
this week, which I
will confess, you know,
obviously as a gun
owner, I don't think
there's any gun owner
up there that wouldn't
be able to get out of
a psychologist chair
without at least some
degree of generalized
anxiety diagnosis.
Um, but I mean, I hear
these headlines and you
get the little heart
flutter of, Oh shit
maybe it's real, but um.
Oh, can we swear
on this pathway?
Is that allowed?
Swear away.
Okay.
It might happen
accidentally, but we'll
keep it to a minimum.
Um, yeah, it may
not happen, uh,
or might happen.
But then I think the
reality is 55 days for
those that don't know.
So you got your first
reading in the house of
commons, second reading
in the house of commons.
Typically not much
happens between those
two, especially with
government bills
because private members
bills and government
bills, government bills
are backed, but the
government probably
member's bills or smaller
bills that a private
member puts out that
the government may or
may not have consulted
on dramatically.
Typically private
member's bills
don't make it.
Government bills are the
big ones that are policy.
So this is a government
bill, they've got lots
of background on it.
So private member's bills
being first and second
reading, they do see
some degree of editing.
Because someone may
read it and go, someone
across the isle will go,
you're an idiot, this
is unconstitutional,
illegal, whatever, and
they'll make a change
and they'll give it a
second reading in the
house just to say, I'm
serious about this.
I've made the
edits right.
Now it'll be read
the second time.
Obtaining a second
reading is very easy
on the calendar.
It gets really tricky
to get the third reading
because between second
and third, and you have
the committee stage.
Where the parliamentary
committee on, um, I
believe the parliamentary
committee is the
national national
security public safety.
Um, I think parallels
the Senate committee.
Uh, and that committee
is comprised of MPS,
the makeup of it
reflects that of the
house of commons.
So it is a minority
committee with
liberals chairing it.
Um, but this is where
it'll get messy is
because, you know,
even if they can get
the second reading,
which they obviously
will this week, it's
just a scheduling
thing, they don't have
to discuss anything.
But once they put it
into the committee, uh,
the committee schedule
actually, for example,
WE, the, WE scandal's a
great example of this.
Remember how, like we
were seeing all those
headlines progress and
progress and progress,
and then it hit
committee and it stopped.
Like it just, you heard
nothing else about, WE.
Same as SNC, it was
committee committee
committee, and then it
just stopped because
although the liberals
do control the committee
and they can bring
things to a stop,
they don't have the
majority to, to progress
things beyond that.
So things just get
parked in committee.
So like the WE scandal
is still being heard in
the committee because
the liberals can't move
on, but they have enough
people to stop progress.
And we're going to see
the same thing here,
because I mean, this is
the bill that determines,
this is a multi-billion
dollar buyback, the
government has to know
this at some level.
None of the scheduling
makes sense.
So, you know, to go back
to the main point, you've
got 40 days to get this
through a committee where
the Bloc Québécois will
try and be painting the
Liberals into a corner
to say, if the gun
buyback isn't mandatory,
it's not a buyback.
So the Liberals will
have to be doing some
kind of politicking
with the Bloc.
The NDP doesn't know how
they're going to stand
because they're probably
pulling on it still to
figure out, you know,
where do we, is it bad.
Because in the political
scheme, basically, you
got the three levels
of rollback, which is
what the CPC wants to
do is roll it back,
stop the buyback.
Then you've got the
liberals that are,
it's a buyback, but you
can keep your stuff.
Um, and obviously for
gun owners, we look at
that and go, well, maybe
we get to keep it down
the road, who knows?
Um, and then the
other one is the
mandatory buyback.
And then the last
one beyond that is
mandatory seizure.
Right.
Of no compensation
seizure.
Now that is an,
that's a thing.
Gun owners need to
realize there are people
out there that want that,
so like, don't forget
that's on the table.
Cause people do start to,
they shift the goalpost
and they forget like,
no, the goal was always
this wide guy's, like.
Right.
We've got to worry
about those things.
Um, and because there's
the rumored election
coming up in June or
the fall and minority
governments only last
450 days on average,
this one's already
passed the average
minority government
expiry date in Canada.
No minority government,
I think actually one
minority government
has gone the full four
term, but it was once
and it was like in the
forties or something,
extremely extenuating
circumstances.
So long story short,
I just don't see this
bill beating Justin
Trudeau's next election
writ because he has his,
when you think of Justin
Trudeau's priorities,
winning the last
election is like here.
And you've got
your hand up high.
Actually banning
guns, way higher.
Yes.
Um, and then his actual
gun stuff is way lower.
So this is just
to get votes.
So what I think he's
going to do, uh,
this is just my,
this is conjecture.
From someone who's
watched politics on guns
for 10 years, what I
think is going to happen
is they're going to run
this thing through as
close as they can get.
They're going to put as
much effort into getting
it as close to the finish
line, and then they're
going to drop the writ
and they're going to
try and drop the writ
on some sort of leverage
legislation or policy
to try and make it look
like the Liberals are
not the ones asking
for this election.
Then they're going to
campaign on the notion
that the Conservatives
demanded the selection.
The Conservatives killed
off the gun ban bill, the
Conservatives canceled
the buyback and you got
to vote Liberal to keep
the buyback on rails is
what I think they'll do.
Because I think this
because also too, when
you look past this
and you go, where do
they go beyond this?
What's the next
selection promise?
If they pass this law,
what do they promise the
anti-gun people next?
Because they're not
going to just let
those people swim away
from the voting block.
Like they're there in
the sales funnel for
the Liberal party.
They're not just going
to be like, okay, well
we're done with you,
you can go vote for
whoever you want now.
They have to keep those
people on the line.
So, and there's
nothing past this, they
can't ban handguns,
the bill's too big.
There's 2 million of
them, it was too much,
it's just not worth it.
Like, I don't think any
government wants to go
down that road of buying
2 million handguns.
Like the bill would
be huge, but just
fundamentally it's,
it's something on the
balance sheet no one
wants politically.
Well, the, on the balance
of probabilities here
and on that spectrum
that you've already
pointed out, buy back
might not be necessary.
I mean, it depends on
when you say it, cause
you always have to look
at these, whenever I look
at stuff now with the gun
laws, it's the question
of, do you look at it
from the perspective of
what will this do from
a legislative / punitive
/ enforcement perspective
versus what will this
do at the ballot box?
Because so much of
the legislation and
policy that's come out
of this government.
And I'm not just saying
this, this isn't, I'll be
totally blunt, I'm not an
overly partisan person.
I'm not a big fan of
the liberals because I
work in the gun industry
obviously and I don't
like the way they govern
our country in general.
But, um, so don't, I
don't want people to
think this is a partisan
snipe, but generally
speaking, this government
has not been terribly
effective at governing
for the last five years.
We have not passed
many actual laws.
They have not actual,
like I mean, they
haven't changed much.
Gun owners are a prime
example of like, I know
our lives will change
dramatically and it's
a huge, huge concern
and we are at, we are
at the brink of losing
all of our guns, but
I'll be blunt, it took
six years to get here.
Like six years.
This government has
been promising to do
this for six years.
It took them six years
to do this, you know?
There, they don't
too much, very
quickly do they.
No.
Um, So it's one of
those kind of, this idea
that the government is
suddenly going to go from
a government that has
passed, you know, some of
the smallest volumes of
legislation in history to
passing the largest and
most sweeping and most
expensive piece of gun
control legislation in
Canada's history in less
than 40 days, during a
global pandemic strikes
me as far as far fetched.
Is there any way that
they can push it through
with a different method
other than, uh, I
mean, obviously you
can't do the OIC again,
but is there another
way they can do it?
He can't OIC this, cause
technically speaking
on the, uh, legally,
uh, they can OIC things
that are regulation.
So they can OIC the
AR-15 because it's, it's
a reg like the document
is called regulations.
Uh, it's not legislation,
it's not an act.
They can OIC acts as
well, but the thing
with OIC's is you
can't OIC anything that
involves procurement.
If there is a dollar
bill attached value,
it has to go through
the house of commons
because, OIC's are
intended to change typos.
That's OIC's legal
intention for the
Parliamentary procedure
was literally, cause
all of Canada's laws are
passed in English and
French, and sometimes
when they do the French
translations, the words
don't quite match up.
And you can end up with
laws that say like,
you can't ride your
horse down the street,
meaning you can't ride
your turtle down the
street or something
stupid like that.
Obviously I don't speak
French cause someone
to Quebec, those words
mean nothing alike.
Um, BC guy.
Um, but like that's what
OIC's are supposed to be
for, cause they didn't
want to have the host
of common sitting and
having 338 paid MP's go
like, yeah, we want to
correct the typo on page
284 of the criminal code.
So they said the privy
council was supposed
to have the right to
just change small,
inconsequential things
in general, and then that
expanded out into this
regulatory framework,
but it hasn't expanded
into procurement.
And thankfully the
one thing people also
should think about, um,
the only reason that
Justin Trudeau can't
do this is because the
Conservative party and
even the NDP even, but
mostly the Conservative
party made a massive
issue out of the Liberal
party, trying to pass
that bill early on in
the pandemic that would
have given the Liberal
party, both taxation
and spending powers.
Because what it would
take for Justin Trudeau
to pass this unilaterally
would be essentially
the modern version of
the war measures act,
which is what they were
looking at, passing
early in the pandemic.
And the government
basically said, we're
going to pass this, but
we're not going to give
you the spending ability
and the taxing ability
to just tax and spend
however the government
wants because that's
that's pretty crazy.
Um, but if he had gotten
that, then yes, this
bill could have just
been a essentially, an
executive order of I'm
going to spend 5 billion.
And the only reason,
so people, if you're
watching this going
well, how can you spend
so much money so quickly
on pandemic response?
We fast track
stuff in the house.
Um, pandemic
response bills were
given fast track.
So it's a whole, those
bills, do go through
that kind of more war
measures type framework.
It still does replicate
the parliamentary
framework, but it's
been streamlined.
Um, for emergency
purposes, but anything
that isn't pertaining
to COVID response has
to go through the normal
framework and it isn't
given the benefits of
all those pandemic stuff.
So if anyone's listening
and wondering why there's
a disconnect there and
why I'm saying they can't
pass this, but they can
pass, CERB response in
two days, it's one is an
emergent thing and one
is a long-term policy.
You know, shockingly
Westminster parliaments
don't give government the
ability to pass anything
they want just because
there was an emergency.
Shockingly.
Good.
So.
Close though.
A little bit too close
I think we can all say.
You know, I'd
agree with that.
Now The Silvercore
Podcast is shooting,
hunting outdoor
adventures.
There's going to be
people who listened to
this, who don't have
a firearms background,
aren't interested in
firearms, but should
probably still be
concerned about some
of the things that
have been proposed and
can you speak to that?
Oh, can I, um, there's
where to start?
Well, I mean, first
off, for anyone that's
listening to this and
who is thinking, and I
mean, it's doubtful um,
because I mean, they're,
they're seeking out gun
podcasts probably with
other kinds of folk.
But if they're talking
to someone, if they
find someone in their
life that goes, you
know what, Dan, it
doesn't matter to me.
Like, I don't know how
many AR-15 and I've
had people, like I have
people, I own a gun bags
and I have people in my
family that think that.
Don't know the point,
all that kind of thing.
Those people, you
should just tell them
that if C-21 passes,
it will mean the end of
guns in Canada period.
Because functionally,
what it will do, um,
is, is the framework
that it provides for is,
um, almost completely
replicating much of the
framework that was put
in place by a former
Liberal government
to remove alcohol and
tobacco from the main
stream consciousness.
Now I'm not saying guns
are the same as those
two things, because
as someone that drinks
very sporadically and
minimally, because of
health reasons that
are personal to me,
um, I don't think
either of those things
are terribly healthy.
I do think guns are
actually perfectly
healthy product.
So before anyone
misunderstand that I.
I would disagree on rum.
I would honestly
disagree.
I could totally make
the argument that a nice
scotch lead tonight is
a very healthy thing
for me on certain times
when I have a gutter
shoe, that means I pay
for it the next day.
So unfortunately
it's a like, uhh,
pick and choose.
Um, but I worked in the
car industry, back when
they were kicking tobacco
of everything, uh, and
alcohol and people will
remember that we used to
have a thing in Canada
called the Molson Indy.
And the clue to why
it went away might
be in the name.
Um, and they're
doing the same thing.
Obviously C-21 has
an advertising ban,
it won't actually
impact our business.
So if people think
this is me being,
self-interested it, won't
no one advertises guns
from a self-defensive
perspective in our
magazine really.
And those that do
will have no problem
with switching it.
It's usually us
advertisers that are just
trying to save money on
graphic design that, have
a budget, to be blunt.
It doesn't say
self-defense.
It says violence.
Violence in general.
Violence in general.
Most of them are
just listing.
Does that count as
violence against animals?
Right.
I don't think so, cause
when you actually read.
Like what are we're
talking about here.
The law, I think it says
violence perpetrated
against persons, is
actually in the, cause
I know the parliamentary
summary says that, but
in the actual legislation
says against persons,
because I remember
thinking like what
about bear defense.
Cause Marlin's
always run some big
bear defense ads.
Just hunting in
general really.
Kind of violent animal.
Um, my bigger concern,
however, is that in a
really fundamental way,
like let's, let's say
a C-21 Liberals win.
This is what's
going to happen.
If the liberals win C-21
would likely be expanded
to include additional
things because they
won't just roll the same
thing out post-campaign.
They'll need to give
some fresh meat to
the base to try and
get them on next time.
So there'll be something
else, something
stupid and bad.
Um, probably some kind
of handgun limitation,
something around there.
They won't buy 'em back,
but they'll try and get,
handguns are still the
thing that are not on the
table for the Liberals.
So they'll find some
way of putting them
on the table and, but
moot point anyways,
at the end of the day,
the municipal handgun
gotten ban, right?
What's the one thing
that every gun club
has a problem with
in Canada right now?
It is real estate
development encroachment,
and the encroachment
taking the form of
noise complaints.
You see it nationally.
Port Coquitl- like,
there's not a major
urban center where,
and major urban centers
are the fastest growing
areas in Canada.
So the cities are
expanding faster
than the rural areas.
They're encroaching
onto where the gun
clubs used to be out
in the boondocks.
And now the developers
who just by virtue of
having a lot of money
and being in a world
where they have to
interface with municipal
politicians on a daily
basis to get zoning
permits, those have
been disposed developer.
Those real estate
developers are closer
to municipal staff and
council, then gun club
executive is, and when
you read these things and
you go, okay, well, if
the municipalities can
shut stuff down, right?
What, how long has it, I
mean, before every city
council in Canada decides
that it's just easier
to allow the gun club to
go bankrupt by shutting
down handguns, because
most clubs make their
money off of restricted
ownership, right?
Like if you have a
restricted gun license,
you don't technically
have to have a gun
club membership, but
most people it's the
easiest way, so most
people just maintain
a gun club membership
because they have a
restricted license.
If they get rid of
municipal handgun
ownership, the local
clubs that retain
membership because
that's what the local
restricted owners belong
to to maintain their
hand gun possession.
They may only shoot
three times a year, I
was that guy, when I
first got into shooting,
I got a hand gun.
I belong to the
Abbotsford Fish
and Game Club.
I shot like three
times a year, but I
still was a member.
I paid my 200 bucks
because I owned a handgun
and I had to have it.
I had to have a
license at our club
on my license right.
If they pass the
municipal band, the
officer fish and game
club can't operate
because Abbotsford fish
and game, abbotsford
city council says
no more handguns.
The Abbotsford Fish and
Game Club will lose its
membership within years.
Like the restricted guys
that currently make up
the cohort of Abbotsford
Tactical Shooters and
all the handgun stuff,
all the IPSC stuff, all
those core cohort of
guys that you always
see at the gun club
when you go shooting.
The guys that used to
shoot the AR-15's there,
they shoot the handguns
there now, they won't be
there, and that means the
gun club won't be there.
And when you look at
the larger, I mean real
estate is still the
fastest growing and the
only economic sector
that is growing at a time
when Canada's economy is
basically looking like
it's going to crater.
So in what world do you
see city councils putting
gun clubs over real
estate developers with
millions of dollars of
development potential?
Like you've got a
club of maybe three to
400, maybe five, 6,000
people, 12,000 people,
if you're Burlington and
Ontario, and you're in
the densest area, what
do 12,000 people paying
a few hundred bucks in
a sport that, if you're
a politician looks like
it's on the dying edge
of things, versus a real
estate developer saying
I can put in on an 80
acre plot, how many
towers can they install?
How many, how many
apartment buildings
at $600,000 per
unit can they build.
Gun clubs do not
have a chance against
that kind of might.
And I'm one of those
people that if you put a
bad thing out there and
you make it possible for
it to happen, eventually
it will happen.
Every day, the universe
hits reset, Groundhog day
runs over again, and that
might happen again today,
and eventually it will.
So if they pass this
law that saying of every
hammer, when you're
a hammer, everything
looks like a nail.
Every gun club
will eventually
look like a nail.
And it, I don't care if
you're the Burlington
Gun Club peel.
If you're right in the
middle of a downtown,
urban, Southern
Ontario area, or if
you're in Fort St.
John, at some point that
city that you live in,
that you drive out of
to get to your gun club.
If they pass this ban to
get rid of your gun club,
you'll never get it back.
And once the gun clubs
are gone, I mean that
doesn't even get into the
issue around gun shops.
I mean gun shops in
Canada, we don't get
the benefit of the
big box stores that
have the support of
selling fishing gear.
Like Cabela's can
sell less guns because
they sell fishing
gear and boats and
all this other stuff.
So if they ban one
gun, Cabela's just
sells more Gore-Tex
jackets offset it.
But our local gun
shops, the guys that we
all love and rely on.
You know, those
independent shops.
If they been handguns in
the city of Vancouver,
we all know of various
gun shops that would
probably really have
a hard time making
that work, you know.
Um, they would
probably be able to
keep the lights on.
We see that in Australia,
a lot of shops did manage
to stay open, but there
was a massive reduction
in overall volume.
Um, and I think that's
where, like this isn't,
we're not looking
at the guy that has
the 30-30 Winchester
that goes, this
doesn't matter to me.
Like you're not going
to have anywhere to
sight your rifle in.
You're not going
to have anywhere to
shoot sporting clays.
You're not going to
have a retailer to
bring in the latest
version of that ammo
that you wanted.
Like, we will become
a third rate nation of
gun owners that just
get stuff because you
know, for a little while
there, it was nice.
We were climbing, the
market was climbing, we
were getting more stuff
out of the US and we all
saw we'd go to SHOT Show.
Readers may not know
this , listeners rather,
but like, we all go to
SHOT Show every year
and we talked to US
distributors and it was
finally reaching a point
under primarily Trump
because the US sales
were kind of leveling
off that earlier.
That Canada was
getting some respect
from the US market.
And we were starting to
see some product come
out more timely fashions
and were seeing little
things like product
managers would start to
send emails to Canadians
and say, Oh, look at
this new thing that's
coming out of America.
Um, now with this new
law, we're just going
to become another
ulcer because that's
what they thought of
us as though we're the
weird country that you
can't own an AR-15.
And then once we started
to adopt these modern
firearms and adopt
modern shooting and go
like, Oh yeah, 3Gun is a
perfectly viable sport.
People start loving it
and doing it a bunch.
Ryan Stacey I mean,
I remember Ryan.
I mean, I've known
Ryan for years, like
predating even Calibre.
And when he was shooting
for the BCRs, like,
I remember thinking
like, who does this
weird obscure sport?
This is going
back probably
14, 15 years now.
Yep.
And I was like,
who does this?
Now, it's super main,
it's not mainstream per
se, but it's way more
mainstream than it was.
Yeah.
Like I'm sure when
Ryan tells I'd be
curious, right?
Like when you talk to
people, your backgrounds
and you're shooting
Bisley and stuff.
Now, when you first
got into it and you
first started being
successful, like 10,
12, 14 years ago with
the PCRs, like has, have
you, have you noticed
like a shifting attitude
amongst the general
population when you
talk about what you do?
I think so.
Yeah.
I mean, it's a lot
more acceptable um.
By the time I was.
Cause if you like the
John Wick, the Jerry
Mitchellick videos, the.
Oh yeah, totally.
I mean.
All the Terran
videos that are out
there, everyone has.
Yep, media has a huge.
What's it called?
Keanu Reeves.
Yeah.
The Keanu Reeves
shredding video like.
I mean, that's not
even really what
I do, but, uh.
No, but I think that's
what, like you say, they
have a comprehension.
Yeah, they understand
it now more than
they did before.
Because I think before,
if you told people I do
competitive shooting,
I don't think they
even had a frame of
reference of what
that would look like.
Like obviously what you
do, doesn't look like
what taran does know, but
I don't think people had
any idea of what it was.
I think if you said
that you were, you're a
competitive shooter and
you used an AR 15 people
would look at it like
'what?' That, isn't that
just for military people?
And I think that relates
to like, I mean, with
the OIC, which you guys
are both applicants on
and, and the, the, um,
the recent decision there
for the injunction and
I, that was relating
to culture right.
And I remember when that
came down and I heard
about it, I thought
about the culture
argument, and I thought,
you know, like, It's
really interesting.
Like, it's really
interesting to me
that the courts are
saying that they're
not seeing a culture
here that's being.
They're just not
looking hard enough.
Reduce.
I mean.
It's there.
I mean, it's, it's, I
all say for me, like
it's a bit tragic because
it feels like a bit
of a two-time thing,
because like I said, like
I'm a, I'm a car guy.
I like guns, but
I'm a car guy first
and foremost, I
don't hide that.
Um, always have
been, always will be.
And for me, it's
really sad too.
I came out of the
automotive sector
after the end of
the Molson Indy.
I used to, I used to
work Molson Indy, I was
press, I went down there.
It was like the greatest
weekend of my life.
Like we spend all
weekend in a race
paddock is great.
Um, and I remember the
same arguments because
the city council of
Vancouver, ironically
municipal politics game,
and the advertising ban
around alcohol and all
those things are all,
we don't want these
sponsorships of tobacco
and alcohol in the public
eye, was leading to the
exact same discussions
of, well motor sports
isn't really a sport.
We really shouldn't
be promoting, this
is bad for the
environment, so noisy.
Literally the exact same
arguments that I'm now
hearing around guns.
And it's so tragic
to me that the people
in the gun community
aren't seeing it
because the thing
that's happened to cars.
Car guys will understand
this, in the lower
mainland, for example,
there was a Westwood
Racing Circuit.
It was big enough
that Al Unser Sr
race there, it was a
global racing circuit.
It's currently a real
estate development on the
top of Port Coquitlam,
a little bit down from
the Port Coquitlam
Fish and Game Club.
If you actually look
on Google maps at
Westwood Plateau Real
Estate Development,
if you look at the
perimeter, it looks like
a racetrack because it
is the old racetrack.
Hmm, interesting.
The exact same
things are happening.
And Port Coquitlam Fish
and Game Club is on the
same freaking road as
Westwood was and they're
looking at closing
because of real estate
development encroachment.
Because again they're,
it's a cultural thing
because I hate to say
it, gun owners are not
doing themselves any
favors with this rapid
leap angry rhetoric.
We have to reach out,
we have to recognize
we are the minority.
We don't have the power
to change the massive
amounts of people's
opinions by simply
saying, you know, we own
guns and like, it's okay,
we're not a problem.
It's not enough
to say that.
Because I've seen it
a lot, it's something
I've brought up, like
I've thought about a lot
recently because of the
C-21 debate and I see
people bring up a lot
that they're targeting.
They're targeting legal
gun owners has been a
very common refrain in
the media that I've seen.
Um, or gun owners
saying, you know,
they're victimizing
legal gun owners when
they take our guns away.
And I think, I get
it, I do, it's possi-,
as a gun owner, yeah,
they absolutely are.
That is an
absolute truth.
But there's a point
too, where you have to
recognize it within,
uh, within the context
of the discussion
around, around guns.
When you think that
the discussion around
gun policy is actually
a discussion of
public safety policy.
When you've got a
cohort of people that
are involved in the
discussion, whether we
like it or not saying
we're the victims were
being targeted and.
And the people are,
and then you've got a
third, the third party,
you've got the anti gun
and the pro-gun people
saying, you know, we're
being targeted, we're
law, abiding gun owners,
it's not our fault.
And then you've got
the pro the anti-gun
people saying, Nope,
guns are the problem,
get rid of all guns.
The massive amount
of people involved
in this debate are
on the sidelines,
just watching, right.
And what they're
watching is a bunch of
anti-gun people make
frankly very emotional
rabbit-end pleas.
Logically inconsistent
arguments that don't
stand up on their own and
gun owners making, to be
totally frank, equally
emotional, sometimes
equally illogical
arguments in response.
Instead of being the
rational voice and going
Hmm, when it comes to a
discussion of young kids
killing themselves and
each other in the streets
with illegal firearms
over drugs, because they
have no better possible
outcomes in their life
than a potential being
killed in an alleyway,
making tiny sums of
cash selling dime bags.
Cause I hate to say it,
but street-level dealers
do not make a killing.
These are, these are
truly marginalized
people living unfortunate
existences that none
of us would wish upon
our best, our worst
enemies, nevermind
anyone in our family.
Um, those are the people
that are also involved
in this discussion
and gun owners are so
constantly trying to
say, it's not our fault,
it's not our fault,
not our fault, because
we, we are kind of been
targeted in the past
that it's almost like
we've lost sight of our
role in this discussion.
Is to be the arbiters to
say, look as the legal
gun owners as the experts
on the laws around gun
ownership, I'm not here
to tell you that I'm
a victim or a target.
We don't have a
right, it is a risk.
It is.
It's just not a right.
It's not a government,
right bestowed upon
us to own firearms.
We have to make our case
with diplomacy and I
don't see that anymore.
And it's, it's,
it doesn't work.
We're we're, it's,
it's, it's problematic
to me I guess, because
I just don't, it's,
it's really hard.
Cause I have to confront
the journalists right.
Because what I'm saying
is when I see the, this
is getting awkward now,
but I'll just leave all
this in if you want but.
Fundamentally I think
it has to be said, I
don't mind that people
might not like hearing
this, but let's just put
it in the context of,
I do a media interview,
did one last week.
And a guy goes, okay,
well, this guy online,
you know, the guillotine
comment, right?
Yeah, it was
pretty extreme.
I don't, I don't think
that we should be talking
about breaking the
guillotine out quite yet.
Um, the Liberal's
havent' actually.
Is that a thing?
I must have missed that.
Yeah, there was a
thing where some people
made public comments,
because of course on
the media, they do have
access to social media,
so of course they're
trolling the same.
I don't mean trolling as
in like they're typing
out and trolling, I
mean they're trolling
as in you're fishing.
They're looking for
comments, right?
And I, same thing,
you want to talk about
how high this goes?
Not to sound like that
sounds super conspiracy.
Here it comes!
By Alex Jones,
tinfoil hat.
Yeah.
When I was giving my
testimony on C-71 at
the Senate, Senator Mary
Lou, um, I won't say your
last name, cause I can't
even remember it, but I
remember first name cause
it's the only Mary Lou
I've ever met in my life.
Um, she literally
made a point of every
single pro-gun witness.
She had gone extensively
through their social
media backgrounds,
including as far as
when the president of
a local gun club was
called to testify.
She had gone through
the gun clubs Facebook
page, and she tried
to make him answer for
comments left by gun
club members and by
the gun club, executive
posting comments that
he didn't leave on the
Facebook page himself.
So that's the level
to which those of
us that I think the
government referred
to as stakeholders,ie.
people that have skin in
the game, when it comes
to all these things, or
have at least a large
background of research.
Um, those individuals,
like we're being
forced to answer
for what everyone is
putting out there.
And I'm frankly getting
really tired of people,
putting it out there
that justin Trudeau is
going to kick my door
down and put me in
the back of an MLVW.
And what drive me
to the Vernon cadet
summer training camp
for imprisonment?
There's, it's
getting a bit, you
know, this is a law.
We are a nation of laws.
When I see people on
my own Facebook page on
Calibre saying when I
say he can't, he's not,
it's unlikely that he
can pass this in 55 days.
And I go, well he's and
then people go, oh well
he'll, you'll see it.
And I go, well he
can't, that's legally
impossible, it's
unconstitutional.He'll
do it anyways.
No he won't, like,
this is very much
not something he
can possibly do.
And I think that we, as
gun owners need to strive
to elevate our discourse.
And when I say that,
I mean, everyone's
fucking discourse needs
to go up a notch or
two, and they need to
start thinking like,
instead of punching down
when you see comments
from anti-gun people
that make you angry.
If you feel angry, do
what you would tell
your five-year-old
to do, walk away.
Come back with a clear
head, come back with
good arguments, come
back with arguments that
make the people watching
on the sidelines think
you're the professional.
I mean, it's basic
stuff, like even little
things on interviews
where you watch.
And I won't name
names because they're
out there, but watch
interviews with some
people that work at
this industry, the
anti-gun person shows
up to do the interview.
They're wearing a
doctor's lab coat
because it brings with
it an air of authority.
You see someone in a
lab coat, you listen to
them generally, right?
The gun industry person
shows up in real tree
t-shirt and a John Deere
hat and you kind of
go, I would take that
guy's advice on what
brake discs to buy.
You know, like it's, it's
just a fundamental wear
a suit, wear a tie, be
the kind of person that
people aspire to be.
Don't be the kind of
person that always has to
argue for your existence.
Like how much different.
We always use the
Swiss example, right?
Everyone goes, Oh, the
Swiss, everyone's got
a gun in Switzerland.
Everyone would probably
like to be Swiss.
Why?
Because they have a
shit load of money.
They've never
been in a law.
Their country is pretty
much as good as it
gets in terms of like,
good outcomes for the
people that live there.
It got there because
people strived to
make it better.
They didn't strive to
continuously oppose
the other people.
I mean, that's
the, I mean, that's
fundamentally my
big problem is it's
just, we've entered
this new era of
oppositional stuff and
it's no one's building
anything anymore.
Everyone's just
tearing stuff down.
So, what do you see the
best direction is to
go when you're engaging
people on social media?
Just factual stuff?
I mean, in, in my own
personal case that
doesn't seem to work in
a lot of, a lot of ways.
Like you can, you can
lay out the facts and you
can lay it all straight
out and you can be
polite and professional
and away you go.
And they still, dump
in all the ridiculous
stuff that, you know.
Well, that's trying to
fight emotion with fact.
It's really
what it is yeah.
I guess we need to find a
way to fight the emotion
with our own motion.
I think it's also too
like, there's multiple
forms of capital
out there, right?
Like you got, you got
your time, you got your
money, you got all these
things at your disposal
that you can do, right?
Um, and maybe it's
just having a kid
recently, but I mean,
laying on your death
bed, while responding
to the doctors for
protection, from guns on
Twitter, be the time you
appreciate having spent.
Like, um, and I
think that's where
it comes down to.
Um, It's just some
people can't be
convinced first off.
So there's, there's
certain like, there's,
there's definitely a
point in at this point.
I think it's, it's
certainly safe to say
the pro gun side of
social media commands
a far larger audience
and the anti-gun side.
And the pro gun side
needs to recognize,
you'll recognize that
Calibre pretty much
never, ever, ever
interacts with anyone
anti gun on Twitter or
Facebook or any other
place because when the
doctors for protection
from guns had 300
followers on Twitter
and Calibre has tens of
thousands of people on
Facebook, why the hell
would I promote them?
Like, why would we, even,
if they say the stupidest
thing, like I could,
this is what happens.
Cause again, people
don't see this, if you
look on the insight
side and we'll probably,
I might do my own
maybe video cast or
stream or something
on this to show people
the backend of what
social media websites
look like to see what
works on social media.
What gets traction on
social media is outrage.
Absolutely.
The way the
algorithms work.
Sure, conflict.
Yeah.
Yeah, as again.
So for way of explanation
to those listening
and the algorithms on
social media are the
things that decide what
you are shown, right?
Like your friends post,
you know how sometimes
on Facebook you'll see
some things from one guy
and not other things.
It's the algorithm
deciding you're
supposed to see.
It decides based on what
gets lots of feedback.
Now, what usually
gets lots of feedback
is things that
have high emotional
attachments, ie.
things people hate or
things people love.
As a result, when I put
up a post on Facebook
saying, Hey, look at
this really great new
gun, it's awesome.
Like great example
would be, um, the first
modern sporter, which
was the first kind of
non-restricted thing that
was similar enough to
an AR-15, that got like
120,000 impressions on
Facebook within the first
day maybe, thereabouts.
That was a big,
that was a big deal.
Um, that video I did
on C-21 got 130,000
impressions in the
first three hours.
Everything political,
everything to do with
the debate always
gets the most likes.
So yeah, I could have
absolutely shared a
bunch of doctor's stuff.
I could have shared
a bunch of anti gun
stuff and I could have
gotten a whole shit
load of Facebook likes
and impressions, and
it would have expanded
Calibre, social media
presence, but it also
would have expanded the
social media presence of
those anti-gun groups,
which I do actually
think we are seeing a
bit of the aspect of now.
Those doctors for
protection from guns
was literally one
person with a Twitter
account initially.
Now they have 300,000 or
$200,000 from Airbnb and
like they've expanded.
They've they've eclipsed,
both of the other groups.
And when you look at
the only thing that's
different between
doctors, any other
anti-gun groups, it's
a doctors has been
engaged more with the,
with the program groups.
Interesting.
They choose to,
they both do.
The pro-gun groups,
engage the doctors and
the doctors engaged
with the anti gun groups
or per vice-versa.
This is getting very
complicated, but you
know what I'm saying.
Um, The doctors are
engaging and it's, and
there everyone is feeding
off it cause it does,
I think on both ends, I
think people are seeing
social media growth and
they're interpreting
that as success when
Twitter still hasn't
made a profit, you know.
Social media is only
social media is not, it's
not actual legislation.
I don't think a gun
owner out there would
say we've made progress
on gun rights in
the last five years.
You know, it's
not, we haven't.
Um, we have, I think
inadvertently, propped
up the creation of
anti-gun groups or
made them stronger.
I think we have done
a disservice and
lowered the discourse
that we have.
And I think that as
a result, we, we do
stand to potentially
be ostracized from
the political parties
that stand to hold
power in the future.
Because unless we start
to look like, we always
like to say, we're the
best Canadians, but
we've got to act like it.
And I think that involves
recognizing that, like,
when you hear these
stories about these gun
laws and stuff, I hate to
say it, but you do have
to think if they want to
take my AR-15 how would I
explain why I should keep
my AR-15 to the mother
of a kid who was shot.
Is I think what gun
owners need to think
about, because there's
a mom out there
who's thinking that.
And if that was my kid
or if that was anyone's
kid, I think, I think
we can probably see
that emotionally, my
kid was shot and I want
guns off the street
would be two very
easy dots to connect.
Um, and I think that
because those dots
are easy to connect,
it's why people do.
I don't think it's
logically consistent
and I don't, I
don't think it's.
I don't think it's
good for our country.
I think it's, I think
it's hurting our young
people at this point
and it's increasing
violence to not focus
on the real problems.
But again, I think gun
owners need to think
that before they type
something out on Facebook
or they say some smart
ass comment about how
libtard, snowflake
this or that, think,
you know, there are
parents out there who
are losing their kids.
There are families
that are losing loved
ones to suicide, and
simply saying, well,
stop targeting me.
That doesn't make
you feel better when
your kid was shot.
That doesn't make you
feel like, like your
kid's friends are
going to be safer.
You know, we gotta
give these people hope.
We need to show them that
we care and it's, we've
gotta get there somehow
and it's not going to be
by continuously, I hate
to say it because I have
been a member of the NRA,
my membership lapsed only
because I let it in the
magazines stopped coming.
But, um, we can't,
we're not the NRA,
we're not Americans.
We don't have a
second amendment.
Um, we do have
a Westminster
parliamentary system.
We do not live
in a Republic.
All those same reasons
that Canadian gun
owners like to say we're
different than the US
we don't have the U S
gun violence problem,
et cetera, et cetera.
All those differences,
um, are also the same
differences that prevent
us from effectively
deploying US style
arguments because US
style arguments hint
around that rights, the
second amendment, that's
their, that's their real
foundation, which we
just fundamentally lack.
So if we're coming at
it with the argument and
we're bringing in that
US style rhetoric, we
don't have the foundation
for that to stand up on.
It's essentially, it's
building a house on
quicksand, you know.
Um, it looks really good
and people think it's
great right up until
the one legislator goes,
you don't have a right.
This whole right
was never a right.
You know, you have a
legal responsibility of
all these other things.
And we have, because
the other thing too is
it's we have, we don't
have a right to own
guns, but the government
does have a legal right
to uphold the law.
The law states that they
can't just take shit
away if it's going to
reduce the amount of
hunting, if guns can
use for hunting, if it
can reduce culture, you
know, all those things,
we want them to abide by
their responsibilities.
I think we also have
to have a certain
degree of respect for
our responsibilities
and what those are.
And it's it's to show
people we, we are safer.
We do care, you know.
Man, you've brought
up a lot of stuff.
You went really
macro on this one.
Uh, I really like what
you have to say on this.
Cause I agree, I agree
with what you're saying.
Um, I, it was an
eye-opener for me a
number of years ago,
corporation of Delta
before it was the
city of Delta, says
we're going to ban
firearms businesses
and I went into the
city hall, municipal
hall there and had
all my notes prepared,
had all the arguments
and the statistics
and everything, all,
all ready to present.
And as I'm going
through it, I forget
the fellow's name.
Barry I believe it was,
he say's, Travis I'm
going to stop you right
there, hold on a second.
You've got a lot
more of this stuff?
I said, Oh yeah,
I sure do, right.
He says, you got to
understand, I agree with
you a hundred percent.
Everything you're
saying is true and
I agree with you.
That said we're in a
position where if we
think our constituents
want something that
will take steps to
implement that, whether
we agree with the facts
behind that or not.
And that level of
honesty, and we're going
back about 10, 15 years
now, and it's a little
bit younger, it was quite
an eye opener for me.
And when you, when you
talk about, uh, how to
properly comport yourself
in an argument on social
media, you know, there's
some simple steps that
I typically take, when
I look at an issue.
I try to separate the
people from the problem.
I take a look at what
the problem is, take a
look of the person and
as angry as I can be at
that individual or group
of people who are making
certain statements,
because they're
completely off base, at
least in my opinion, I
do my best to separate
them and take a look at
addressing the problem.
If I can't separate
the people from the
problem, I extricate
myself because there's,
there's no way to be
able to properly work
within that framework.
The second thing
I do is, I agree.
Essentially, any offense
is taken and not given,
if they say something
as crappy as it can
be, and as much as they
try to offend and get
my goat, it's me, who
ultimately will take.
Have that power.
Right.
It's that old adage.
And you see it on Tik
Tok and these different
things, people are
bringing it up again.
A guy gives you a
present, but you
don't accept it.
Who's that
present belong to?
Oh, not to you, right.
Belongs to the person
who brought it in.
And finally, I'll do
my best to approach
a problem from a
position of curiosity,
rather than conflict.
So when you're talking
about how, how do
you convince a mother
whose child was
killed by an AR-15?
I can put my mindset
in all the statistics
and say, it wasn't
the firearm, we should
be combating, uh,
violence or what,
however it took place.
Whether it was a
straight bullet from
gangs, and so we should
be looking at gangs.
Or whether it be
suicide because suicide
is it, uh, largest
killer of people with
firearms in Canada.
And you can say I'll
just look at the suicide.
They can get a knife,
they can get pills, they
can take, get a rope.
Put myself in a position
of curiosity, what
would it be like to be
that individual and to
have gone through that?
Because maybe there's
nothing you can
say to that person.
I think that a lot
of the time there's
nothing you can say.
Right.
Not even worth
an arguement.
Your job's not
to say anything.
That's it.
And I think that's
the fundamental
thing is like.
Exactly.
Like Ryan you've
got kids, right?
Yep.
Like if your, if your
son was killed, is there
anything anyone, anyone,
I don't care if it's the
president of the United
States, anyone, is there
anything anyone could say
to you to soothe that?
And the answer's
no, right?
Like there's nothing
anyone can say to make
a mother feel better.
It's not our job to
make her feel better.
What our job is to do
as gun owners, is to
show her that we are
being responsible.
So it's not saying,
you know, it's not
saying I should keep
my AR-, cause I do
see it like literally
there is a very,
there's a high profile,
she's very emotional.
She's tied into the
anti-gun movement.
She will likely,
never change her mind.
But she's the, she's the
mother of a, of a son
that was killed in a gang
murder and it's tragic.
Um, And, and I, I
think it's, I think
what's happened to
this one is of her,
or sorry, a daughter.
Um, Lindsey's mom has
her name on Twitter.
I'll just say it.
I mean, she's on Twitter,
so everyone knows it.
She's a staunch anti-gun
person, she, she posts
quite prolifically.
Um, I've purposely
tried to avoid engaging
her because I can't,
I don't know how to
frame that discussion.
I don't know how to
talk to someone that,
that has lost their
child like that.
I don't want to say.
Who does?
But I would say, you
ask the question.
If you, if they say,
you know, I want you
to get rid of your
AR-15 because it'll
help prevent murders.
You say like, well, why?
Like what, you know,
what, what do you think
is causing these murders?
And you ask questions.
Cause the big thing
is, is there's there's
there's, you can be on
broadcast or you can
be on receive, right?
Like people are
generally, we're the
old CV radio system.
We don't do two
way so well, right.
And when you get into a
conversation with someone
it's, it's natural,
it's very natural.
People want to talk
about themselves.
Look at me.
I've spent most of
this podcast talking
cause I am the most
verbose person in this
industry bar none.
Proud to say so.
I would agree.
Happy to say it.
Um, I'm fairly certain
people don't take my
calls cause I talk too
long, but nonetheless.
Um, at the end of the
day, like you just don't
have that, like, you
have to ask questions
and people are so much
on broadcast because in
the modern social media
world, that's all it is.
That's what bro, like
when people talk about
Twitter, people rarely
talk about the things
they've read on Twitter,
unless it's the things
they've interacted
with because social
media is a broadcast
thing for most people.
It's how they
express themselves.
They express themselves
on Facebook, they express
themselves on Twitter
and then occasionally
they see how other people
express themselves.
And because of the
algorithm, they only see
the people they hate and
the people they love,
they express themselves
in matters and they
hate and they love.
Um, and the problem
there is that, between
the torquing of the
messaging by the
algorithms that people
don't see cause that's
behind the curtain, but
at that, you know, wizard
of Oz sort of effect,
but also too, just the
overwhelming sense of,
uh, the bubbles that
are created because that
algorithm creates, um.
Echo chambers.
Bubbles, echo
chambers, yeah exactly.
Very good echo chambers.
So you basically just
get surrounded by
people who like what
you have to say and
that say similar things.
So you naturally start
to like what you have
to say more and more.
So when you enter these
conversations with a
mom, instead of, instead
of thinking, because
I think in most cases,
if you were to ask the
average person that
doesn't own guns, to
sit down in a room and
have a conversation
with a parent who'd
lost a child, most of
them would say I would
have a lot of questions.
I don't think they'd
have much to say, because
most people wouldn't
feel like they would
have much appropriate
input on that scenario
because admittedly it's
such a tragic occurrence
and unless you've gone
through it, I don't
think you can really
provide much input.
So most people would
go, I'd be very curious
to, you'd probably find
it on a videotape, they
asked more questions.
What was it like, how
did you get through it?
What were the first days?
Like, you know, do
you think you'll ever
have another, all
these questions that
you would want to ask.
I don't know why gun
owners immediately,
it's because of
the victimization
we do have that, I
think it's innate.
We have, we've kind of
wrapped ourselves in
this cloak victimhood
of, we're being targeted
by the government,
we're being targeted
by the government.
And it's, and because the
laws that they pass are
always created because
someone was shot, like
people were killed in
Portapique that did
not deserve to die.
Gun owners have allowed
the perpetrator of
that shooting and the
nature by which he
obtained his guns to
completely dictate the
manner in which they
respond to that event.
And I think
fundamentally, if
people take anything
away from the podcast,
that's what I want
them to stop doing.
Because when you can
watch that many people
get killed in a short
window of time for
no goddamn reason
and your response is,
but my guns, you need
to take a hard look.
Seriously.
As someone that works in
the gun industry, who,
who flat out, I've been
doing this for 10 years.
I'm looking at
potentially if the
liberals win the next
election, I'm not sure if
my business will survive.
And yes, this is
my voice breaking
that you're hearing,
because it's incredibly
hard to talk about.
But even as someone
that's considering losing
this much of what I've
put my life into, if
someone were to say,
Hey, would you give up
your AR-15 if it saves
everyone's life on
that day in Portapique?
Absolutely.
How could you not.
Those are, those are
sisters and brothers
and friends, you know,
like I think we as
gun owners have lost a
bit of the perspective
and we need to get
back around all that.
Well said, Daniel.
Nice.
That said, I don't think
giving up my AR-15 would
save anyone's life,
just for the record.
Um, I think what
would save lives
is good government.
And I think that's
where it gets
problematic because
I say that and I get
very emotional because
it is very saddening.
And I think that's the
perspective we need
to come at it from
because it tempers the
anger, it tempers the
frustration that I feel
because I sat there.
I'll confess, I was a
gun owner the sat there
on the, on my couch on
May 1st and thought, why
is he doing this to me?
I never thought
about those people.
I think we all did.
It gets, it's
a knee jerk.
Hard not to.
Right?
In the days that happened
afterwards, but in
the days that happened
afterwards is when
the rhetoric picks up.
And that's when we need
to be cautious of that
rhetoric and say, no.
Like when they say,
I think when you hear
about these shootings and
when people say we need
to let the dust settle
before we make comments
and stuff, this is why.
Because in those
first few minutes,
everyone's reacting
to emotional inputs.
You know, people are
watching it and going
those people are, I
don't know those people.
It's the same as
when there's a
tornado in Idaho.
There's no tornadoes
in Idaho, Iowa?
Iowa.
Kansas?
That's where
tornadoes occur.
Yeah.
Uh, floods in
New Orleans.
Like a lot of people
look at the headlines and
they think it's similar.
Its people elsewhere,
it's not my problem,
but when Justin
Trudeau bans my guns,
that is my problem.
Um, but the problem
then becomes when
that rhetoric takes
over the pro gun side
of the debate, we
then enter it from.
To be honest, kind
of a morally bankrupt
perspective because
it's really as someone
that sat across the
table from media
interviewers and had to
defend why I don't think
these gun laws work.
The only reason I can
say is, cause it's,
it's wasting resources.
Like these resources,
this could be spent
on actual progress.
And I think that
argument is the only
argument that matters.
And I think that argument
would be a hell of a lot
stronger if more of our
movement would take into
account that like, shit's
bad out there, folks.
Yeah.
Like young people are
shooting each other
and shooting at each
other more than they
did when I was a kid.
That's for freaking sure.
And I'm 35 years old,
I'm not that old.
Like I grew up on
Tupac Shakur died,
you know, like this is
more violent than then.
Well I'm not going to
discount the fact that
there probably are
some people out there
who will look at it
and say, not my guns
and completely right
off the tragedy that's
happening out there.
But I think it might be
a little disingenuous
to say that gun owners
in general, their head
immediately goes to
the firearm issue from
a perspective of, what
are they taking from me?
And I think the outrage
that is felt from
the community though,
those, the victims
those directly involved
called and the firearms
industry in general is
outrage over the event.
Empathy and compassion
for what's going on and
further outrage over the
fact that, as firearms
owners, most of them will
have done their homework
and have an idea of what
the statistics look like
and have a better idea
of what could possibly
be done to prevent
tragedies like this.
And they see that the
knee jerk reaction of
let's just ban guns will
do nothing to stop the
tragedy that happened.
And that can create a
higher sense of anger.
But I don't think
firearms owners are
properly conveying that.
It comes across as, yeah
don't take my guns as
opposed to what the hell?
You think that we're
going to, if we let's
say we've got a problem
with suicide, suicide,
men will predominantly
use firearms, women will
predominantly use pills.
People have their
preferred methods, but
if we don't have that
implement, we don't
have that instrument
of implementation.
Would that person just
find another instrument?
And maybe we should
be the tried and
beaten that old drum.
Why don't we address what
the actual problem is?
So I, I think, I think
that the, I think the
anger is there, but I
agree with you that the
way that we're, and I
say we're as I put myself
in with the firearms
community, obviously,
the way that we're
conveying that anger and
conveying our message
needs a lot of work
because it's so easily
misconstrued and becomes
positional down to the
firearm issue, as opposed
to solution issue.
How can we find
a solution?
Yeah, for sure.
I agree.
And I think, um, the
only thing I would
say there is, I think,
I don't think the
majority of gun owners.
I'll just say it to them,
majority of gun owners is
on our side on this one.
Um, specifically the
assault weapon ban.
I would've thought that,
and this is where it's
been interesting moving.
Cause I moved out of
Delta four years ago
now, coming up on five.
Um, and when I lived
in lower mainland,
it Abbotsford like
Ryan knows he lives
lower mainland.
Like lower mainland
shooting community is
predominantly a sporting
community, you've got the
trap guys at Vancouver
Gun Club, Abbotsford
is like the center
for all the tactical
shooting type stuff.
You've got IPSC
all over the place,
Poco is big on it.
Like there's lots of
AR-15's, there's lots of
handguns, there's lots of
trap shotguns, it's all
sporting stuff, right?
And hunting is kind
of a bit more of the
minority, cause you've
got to drive like three
hours to shoot an animal
in lower mainland.
Unless you.
Unless you're into ducks.
Live in Delta
like Travis does.
You got it.
And then it's like five
minutes from your house.
So then when I moved up
to Kelowna, it was this
weird inversion, which
I noticed right away.
Because I was, I used
to go to like Reliable
Gun and Wanstalls and
those sorts of shops.
And it was just a sea
of, you know, tactical
stuff and ammunition
and .223 and bulk
stuff and handguns.
And then I came to
Kelowna and the gun
clubs here, like Kelowna
has, Kelowna Fish and
Game has an IPSC range.
It's never been used
to my knowledge,
not since I moved.
The Joe Rich Club, I was
one of two people with
an AR-15 in the club
when I first joined it
in the second largest
metropolitan center in
British Columbia, in the
second largest gun club.
When I took my AR-15
to the Kelowna Fish
and Game Club, some
guy didn't even know
what it was like.
There's no gun, if you
tried to buy an SKS off
the shelf in Kelowna, you
can't do it right now.
There is no SKS.
There's no AR fif- well,
obviously no AR-15's,
but there's like maybe
double digits of handguns
for sale in this entire
city of six figures, like
quarter million people
in this Metro area.
It's insane.
And I think that's
where, also to gun
owners need to recognize
there's a disconnect.
And I think that that
the, the rural gun owner
does not care, by and
large, and this is a
gross generalization.
So please do not email me
with your, I'm a real gun
owner who cares, cause
the exceptions always
prove the rule folks.
By and large, if you
were to drive through
rural Canada and knock
on the doors of people
with PAL's and say, do
you care about the AR-15?
They go the what?
Because it's just not,
if, because fundamentally
when you think about it,
the AR-15 is a restricted
firearm, it can only
be shot on ranges.
If you live in rural
Canada, where's
the nearest gun
range, probably
hours away, right?
What's the nearest
competition to
shoot your AR-15 in?
Hours away, if not
days, depending on
where you live and where
you're driving, right?
I think we're starting
to talk a bit of a change
with the non-restricted
versions of things.
Oh a little bit.
And we're starting
to bleed in.
For sure.
We were seeing that in
Kelowna big time, the
non-restricted stuff was
finally opening people's
eyes up because where you
lack the infrastructure
for AR-15's to be
beneficial, the stags,
the NEA's were showing
people, these are
perfectly viable, modern
firearms that weigh seven
pounds, that are more
accurate than your bolt
gun, that allow you a
better up shot that you
can make fit your wife.
Yeah, so it's, it was
growing, but they've cut
that off at the knees.
And I think that's
where, again, I go for
the macro views because
people do need to look
at these policies.
People need to look
at gun control in
Canada from like
a 10 year scale.
Not a, like C-21,
C-71, all these
bills last few years.
What's the only thing
that's mattered?
Travis and I, before the
podcast, we mentioned
it, the end of long gun
registry the single most
important thing that's
happened in our lifetime.
Well, my lifetime
anyways, I
mean, was that.
The long gun registry
was created in my
lifetime, but I was so
young I don't count it.
I couldn't change
anything then, I was 10.
Um, but that's the only
thing that's mattered.
And ever since then,
they've just been kind
of fiddling with things.
C-21, I'll be honest,
bad bill, terrible bill.
Hope it doesn't pass.
If it passes, how
many guns are they
going to get back?
We'll they'll get
the AR-15's back
because they know
where those ones are.
And the people that
want to give them
back will give them
back and get a cheque.
There's what, 150,000
of those 120,000
AR-15's out there?
I got to figure, they
don't get more than maybe
10% back in the buyback,
I can't see more.
AR-15 owners are pretty
staunch guys, and most of
them have handguns too,
so they'll have a reason
to keep the restricted
license, already.
So the endorsements not
really going anywhere
and we'll all just
wait for the next
government change.
And that's that, you
know, that's where I say
gun owners kinda need
to stop making it about
ourselves and about the
guns we're losing and
about the gun policies
from our perspective
and start thinking as
like, we are the experts
on firearms in Canada.
You know, these are
the laws that they
currently work, these
ones clearly aren't.
Like, I think gun owners
could seriously, like,
we always say like, Oh,
gang bangers, look at,
they don't, they don't
have gun licenses because
they don't have an ATT.
Instead of saying the
ATT is clearly not
working because we
have the system by
which we're supposed
to be authorizing the
transport of firearms
and there seems to be a
whole shitload of people
moving firearms around
the country without ATTs.
We know this because
they keep shooting
each other with them.
So, instead of saying
like there's a public
safety concern that
the ATT system is not
fulfilling the role
that was supposed to.,
we use the laws that
we hate to prop up why
we're better than the
people that are shooting
each other as evidence
of, that's a different
population of people.
They don't have this
fancy plastic card in
our wallets, they're not
us, they didn't get ATTs.
When in reality, the ATT
isn't doing anything.
So why are we, like it's
convenient for us, it
doesn't mean it's good.
It costs a fortune
for the government
to maintain the ATT
stuff when they could
spend more on cops and
that's where like, we
need to be consistent.
It's always gotta
be able to safety.
Anytime we see
there to be room for
improvement on safety,
we should be doing it.
And that includes,
you know, things like
we've seen the CSAAA
do with industry.
Cracking down on
fraudulent purchases and
like doing, working with,
uh, so the cane industry
group worked with the
RCMP to develop, uh,
basically like a sort of
quasi training program
to help train, uh,
retailers on recognizing
straw purchases.
And like, that's a great,
that's, that's worked.
I know there are cases
where people have been
arrested because they
were straw pursing
firearms and that purse
was identified because
of the training that
the employee received.
And that was a hand
in glove industry, law
enforcement working
together and like, that
happened in like, I think
it was like a six month,
it was a fast program
and it made results.
And like, man, if
we had more of that,
there'd be a lot less
people getting shot.
Well.
Again, it all has to be
from that perspective of
safety first, it's all,
it's all about safety.
Because as you know,
when you talk to the city
councils, politicians
only care about what the
voters told them to do.
Um, and safety,
like what's safe.
When I talked to Steven
Blaney when he was the
public minister, it
was always, he never
really talked about
gun policy, he was
always safety policy.
It was always,
everything was from
a safety perspective.
It was never like
politicians never
think from a gun
owners perspective
or about gun clubs.
It's always as a
larger guns in a
safety environment.
Which is what
the liberals are
pushing right now.
They're, they're
talking about guns,
but it's always
backed by a safety.
Some sort of a
safety thing.
And when we're arguing
and when they're arguing,
they should get rid of
guns to make us safer.
And our argument is,
don't take our guns away,
that's a pretty shitty
argument for the guy on
the sideline, is it not?
Like we need to be
saying this isn't
going to make us safer.
This is the reason why.
You need to do this
to make us safer.
It's not going
to be safer.
Um, but because it's
literally like, I
think Travis you're
entirely, right.
It's not that we need
to change the argument.
We just need to change
the order of operations
in the argument.
Because when we start the
conversation with, don't
take our guns, they think
that's the priority.
And the conversation
has to start with, we
want people to be safe.
So when you're talking
to those people, that's
the other thing is if
you're talking to people,
if you're getting a tip
and people are trying to
figure out how to talk
to people, tell the fuds
that it's going to be
the end of all the gun
clubs, because restricted
owners make up what keeps
gun clubs in the black.
And the anti-gun people
that fundamentally like
this isn't going to work
obviously and all that
kind of thing, but tell
them it's a distraction.
Tell them there's
only 55 days left.
Tell them it's the
middle of a pandemic.
Tell them that the IBM.
So the other thing on
timing, if anyone needs
further evidence to
convince people, the IBM
contract that was awarded
for the um, planning
out of the buyback.
Uh, the preliminary
report was delivered
the week before the
law was announced.
So like literally five
business days at most
between IBM delivering
the preliminary report,
which was a $200,000
document I think
that took five weeks.
So it's not
comprehensive in any way.
And this preliminary
report that Bill Blair
took from IBM that I'm
guessing informed bill
C-21, uh, has an option
where to, once they've
completed the initial
report and the government
has given them direction
on which specific model
to go for that the
overall, um, enrollment
of the program will take
an additional two years.
So like they were
saying, this was
supposed to be a two
year, five week project.
And now he's saying
we're going to
have a law ready?
Like legislation
passed in 40 days?
It's not going to happen.
Or, or conversely,
we're not going to an
election in the fall.
And the Liberals think
that after this pandemic,
that they're going to
be somehow be able to
maintain and retain
their mandate, after
the vaccine stuff, after
everything else, it just
doesn't seem likely.
And then again, thinking
from the political
perspective, it would be
great if the Conserv-,
if I was a Liberal
political strategist,
I would look at this
and go, this is great.
We'll get this thing
real close to the finish
line and just when
the anti-gun people
think it's in the bag,
we'll pull the old lucy
football trick and we'll
say, drop that ballot
in the ballot box baby.
And we'll see how
she rolls again.
So, and I think also,
to gun owners on that
front, need to kind of
understand the political
pastoring that occurs
here and understand
that it may change the
way the Conservative
party or other parties
confront these issues.
Um, if the media jumps
all over it and starts
making it look like these
assault weapons have
to get off the streets,
there's some massive
shooting that puts guns
at a bad light again,
you can fully expect Erin
O'Toole to absolutely
not make any statements,
both guns between
now and the election,
because, why would he?
Like.
I'm a little surprised
he did, came out with
that video the other day.
Yeah.
We won't, I'm not.
I thought he would stay
a little more quiet
on the whole thing.
Because the reality is,
is you have to pull the
middle voters over right.
And I know people want to
want them to come out and
say all kinds of stuff.
But the reality of
it is, is if you want
to pull those middle
voters over, um, you
have to be a little
more centrist than.
And it's been
extremely frustrating.
I gotta say, and I, and
I hope if someone from
the Conservative party is
listening to this please,
dear Jesus, God, please,
like get someone that
knows about guns into
the OLO to help out with
policy messaging on this,
because I mean, from,
from Harper to, to Scheer
to now, the Conservative
party's messaging on
guns has basically
been everything I've
complained about today,
wrapped up in a nutshell
and paid for, because
that's what it is.
Conservative party
members are paying for
communication staff
and policy experts
to draft the policy
and communications
that we've seen from
this party on guns.
And that's where I will
say like, again, we'll
probably piss people off,
but it's 2021, some shit
went down last year where
were things are different
and I've got a kid
now, so that's changed
my perspective too.
But, um, I'm getting
really frustrated cause
I mean, those, those
Conservative party,
they work for us.
Let's not forget
everyone forgets these
politicians, they kind
of get the impression
that they kind of
represent the party
in Ottawa, in our
ridings, it's supposed
to be that way around.
And uh, I'm just getting
kind of tired this
constant like, we'll
tell you what our policy
is going to be and
then me getting it and
being like, what the F,
this isn't even good.
Like, I get the
whole, like, trying
to achieve the voting,
like, get the, get
the gun, vote out.
That's what the goal
always is in politics.
But like, I don't know.
Some of that, it's
just, it's just been.
It's like the Common
Sense Firearms
Licensing Act.
It's like, come on
guys, like if you're
going to open the books,
open the books, you
know, do something,
do something right.
Make a substantive
change so that we can
look at a violent
crime rates statistic
that is declining and
say, yeah, we were
part of the solution.
And address the root
causes that actually
are going to have an
effect instead of.
And that's the thing is
I, Erin's statement I
thought was, it's a very
strong, strong statement.
Um, Surprised me.
Yeah.
Uh, I think it's
a good statement.
I think it's
all good law.
I mean, obviously yeah,
rewrite all that stuff,
but I mean, we don't know
how to be re-written.
Um, that's always a
concern is Peter McKay
said he was gonna
rewrite firearms act
and you always go a
little bit of like oh
hmm, if Justin Trudeau
said he'd re-wrote the
firearms act, I might
respond to that a bit
differently than if Erin
O'Toole does, but you
should probably question
that at the same time
as a rational person.
Um, cause they can
rewrite good or bad.
But the other thing
is, um, it's just it's.
Yeah, it's that lack of,
I don't know, lack of
productivity, I guess
it's frustrating to be
sitting on the sidelines
and say like, Hey, you
know, there's a lot
of things you could do
that would frame the
gun discussion in a much
more positive light.
And I don't mean that for
the anti gun groups that
are listening to that
and thinking I'm going to
spin that into a thing.
What I mean by that is
like, like Ryan said,
address the cause.
Instead of saying,
I'm going to roll back
all this stuff to gun
owners, like instead
of putting a video out
for the gun community,
the video should have
been to the general
Canadian population.
Justin Trudeau is going
to spend probably between
2 and 5 billion of your
tax dollars, buying guns
back from people that
don't commit crimes.
I would like to spend
that money standing up
a mental health system.
Yup.
Mhmm.
There, you know.
Yep.
Or stronger borders
or more policing
and gang units.
Like there's a
giant list of stuff
that could be done.
But that's, again, where
a lot of the messaging
on them recently, I
got to say, I don't
understand it in general.
For politics at large
things, like when the
vaccine, like Erin
O'Toole is saying
we're at the end of
the line for vaccines.
And then everyone was
like, no, you're wrong.
And then it came
out he was right.
And he never said,
I told you so.
Yeah.
And that was one of those
like fundamental, like
you're a politician,
you have to say, I
told you, like it's you
know, it's your job.
It's literally what
opposition does, hold the
government to account.
If you were correct,
you know, weeks
before the government.
Own it, say, yeah,
we were right.
You know, we said this
was gonna be a problem.
And guess what.
Start to show people.
And I, I, I think
that's the big thing
is show people.
This is where I guess
fundamentally at that
oppositional side of
gun owners continue
to saying it's all
about the targeting
and the victimization.
We lose our guns, all
that kind of thing.
Is it, the oppositional,
don't, don't stop
thinking that just
because someone
wants to take your
AR-15 away from you,
they're not your ally.
We're all Canadians,
we all want to live
in a safer country.
So I'll start off from
that common ground.
And if they want to
maintain distance and
they don't want to
find common ground with
you, then so be it.
But be it an anti-gun
group or a politician,
like I think the
conservatives need to
stop opposing and start
saying what they do,
how they lead, like
same as gun owners stop
saying, don't take AR-15.
Start saying, spend
the money on a mental
health program.
Spend the money on
opioid addiction
counseling, spend the
money on border patrol,
spend the money on drug
interdiction, spend the
money on money laundering
investigations.
Like spend the money on
any one of those other
things, then we can talk
about the guns, would be
a way better discussion
to have, and I just.
Everyone's just
butting heads it's gets
super partisan, man.
I think it's almost
better to almost ignore
the gun thing and just,
uh, just aim towards
the root causes of
what's going on and
how they would fix it.
And in turn, that's
going to, that's
going to fix the gun
issues in the end.
Uh, everybody's
gonna be happy.
And the gun owners are
gonna know that if you,
if you achieve those
things that you're
promising to do, that
in the end, everybody's
going to be safer.
And the gun folks
will more than likely
still have what
they, what they have.
I think lik if, if I
think that's a good
perspective for people
to have is if you were
to think like what you
said, Ryan, about, if
gun owners were striving
for a safer Canada.
If Canada's gun
homicide rate was
single digits, there
is no government that
could justify spending
any amount of taxpayer
dollars pulling guns
out of civilian hands.
So gun owners should
be striving for that
number to drop too.
Um, obviously
there's the law of
diminishing return.
So it does get really
hard once we're at, I
mean, we're at 200 people
on average, it's for a
country of 32 million is
pretty small number for.
That's very small.
Murders.
But I think too, you
know, one of these bad
things happen, what
you said, Ryan kind
of spawned a bit of
a thought in my head
of like this, what
I've talked about with
regards to gun owners
thinking a little bit
beyond the scope of
their gun safe when they
see these headlines.
Is, um, I'm a young
guy that who sadly is
like, you know, like I
said, growing up in this
nineties, 2000 generation
of school shootings,
Columbine was during my
childhood and I grew up
in a era of just constant
school shootings,
pretty much, um, they're
not the gun's fault.
I always get media
interviews where, okay,
well, what does this have
to do with guns is always
the response, because it
doesn't have anything to
do with guns because if
a kid wants to shoot up
a school, they'll find
some other thing to do,
you know, Timothy McVeigh
or you name it, is a
common, I honestly do.
Like if a kid's going
to grab a 12 gauge and
shoot another kid, I
don't know like, I'm not
the guy to, to say, you
know, what do you do?
Like kid needs mental
help, not like, not to
take a shotgun away,
like taking a kids
shotgun away, he's
still gonna try and
kill another kids.
So it's a little weird.
Um.
Yeah.
But what I've always
thought is like all of
the, so I don't associate
with that as a gun owner,
but I do associate with
that as a young man,
because I've never seen a
mass shooting perpetrated
by a young woman.
And that's where I've
that, that thought.
I don't know when I
had, I think it was a
few years ago that it
suddenly occurred to
me and I thought, you
know, um, it was when
Courtney, we're talking
about having our first
kid and you inevitably
think, well, what if I
have a son, you know, and
mini me kind of thoughts.
And you think about
what's going on with
the kids these days.
And I have concerns about
Tik Tok like everyone
else, but then you see
these shootings and
you think young men um,
might be in a certain,
some, some young men
clearly find themselves
in a, in a state of
very clear distress.
Um, and obviously while
the school shootings
themselves are, are
super, super sad.
I think that, and it's,
it's obviously very
hard to think about the
perpetrators as victims
themselves, but I think
fundamentally, as someone
that has a background
in mental health, you
do have to look at
that and realize that.
Like, if anyone is
wondering, just go watch
a prison documentary
and tell me you don't
feel bad for the guy
who was abused sexually
from the age of three
to 16 and then entered
a life of crime because
he's never known a life
of normalcy, right?
Like you have to feel
sorry for these people.
They, they were not
given the opportunities
that some of us were.
Um, I think it's the same
thing goes on with the
gangbangers in Toronto
and Vancouver is it's,
they're not doing it
because they've got a
great job and they're
like, man, I really don't
like my boss at this
cushy nine to five, I'm
going to go sell drugs.
Like it's not really how
it goes most of the time.
So keeping in mind, you
know, when a gun enters
a violent situation,
there is no one winning
and chances are, there
was no one winning
when that happened
in the first place.
Um, it was just a bunch
of people who are trying
to find a way to win and
don't know how, and I
think guts it's on all
of us to help them out.
Well, Daniel, Ryan,
I've got a bunch of
notes that I had taken
just on C-21 alone.
Some on C-71 some
on the OIC and I much
prefer where this
conversation went.
I think it was much.
Bomb through them quick.
I got a 20 second, hammer
through yellow flags.
I can just, you tell
the, say the word
I'll give her man.
You know what?
Givin' 'er the
whole time.
I was, I was going
to throw it up on the
website and I still
might do that as well.
Just a quick synopsis so
people can look at it.
Of course, on The
Silvercore blog, we have
complete transcripts
knowing full well
that some people
would prefer to read
or watch or listen.
But, hey, you know
what Daniel, if you
want, uh, we've got a
real quick list here.
Red flag, yellow flag,
turning your guns during
a legal challenge,
replica firearms.
Uh, deletion replacement
of grandfathering,
municipal firearms bans,
uh, ammo, individuals
without a firearms
license cannot obtain
ammo abroad, uh, mag
capacity, uh, new,
uh, terms for, uh,
unpinned magazines.
Um, mail order
transfers and centralize
authorization to carry.
So no longer the
CFO now a central
commissionaire, cause
we know the CFOs are run
off their feet, giving
out, uh, authorization.
ATC's.
To carry right, for.
Mhmm.
Uh, so that those
are the main bullet
points I have.
Uh, I did have one
interesting thought
on, on replica's
cause that touches on
a lot of people who
are into airsoft and
some paintball and
.
And that's, that's closer
to your, there's a
bit of a venn diagram
overlap with your,
some of your background
training and stuff too.
There isn't ever-.
Perhaps a little bit,
you're talking about
disabled deactivated,
active, destroyed.
Uh, I think I've got a
little bit of authority
to be able to speak on.
A little bit of
knowledge on it.
On these ones.
Um, in fact, I've sitting
in this podcast studio,
which was once my office,
we've had the, um, uh,
some very high ranking
people from the firearms
program uh, having some
discussions on this who
flew in specifically from
back east to talk on it.
I remember one individual
who, uh, suddenly
couldn't speak anymore
when, uh, she noticed
that there were cameras
in the office because we
are a security related,
related business.
And, uh, tried to
conduct the entire
meeting through hand
gestures, but, uh, it
was, it was interesting.
But did you want to.
Fricken heck man, like.
And I still have that
video I'm sure kicking
around somewhere.
The puppet show.
So yeah.
Did you have any on,
on those things, did
you have any, I mean,
obviously abrogating
control of the handgun
issue from the feds
to the municipalities.
It has some huge.
It's insane.
I dont.
Constitutional issues.
I don't, like.
And it can bleed over
into other areas that
are not even firearms.
Oh yeah, people don't
even understand what's
going to happen.
I mean, like for those
listening, fundamentally
the constitutional
problem with this,
and I'm not a lawyer,
but I do know a
constitutional lawyer.
And my first call after
this was to him, uh,
fundamentally your
firearms license is a
federal document, right?
Like the federal
government issued
that to you.
Right.
And what C-21 is saying.
They call a it geographic
extent, I think is the
actual words that they
use in the firearms act.
Yeah.
Right.
And you can't see
it, but I'm, I'm
laughing and smiling.
Cause this is
legitimately just a
farcically comical
portion of this law and
that they want to have
a federal license, where
your city council passes
a bylaw that says you
can't own a handgun.
Or if you do, you have to
have these special laws.
Cause like, they haven't
said that municipalities
can opt into an
existing set of laws.
They just said,
municipalities can make
some laws and whatever
they say for handgun
storage, possession,
transport, you name it.
They will put on
your license as
conditions, making
your bylaw of federal
statute essentially.
Right.
Because if they're going
to enforce it on the
back of your license to
federal condition on your
federal license and like.
I don't think, I mean,
hey, like I said, I
don't think any of
this will happen.
And I will say so for
the big synopsis of
people want a better
run down on a lot of
these things in detail.
I can highly recommend,
I like Ian Runkle's
channel lot, the YouTube
lawyer out there talking
about this stuff.
Um, the red flag laws
terrible, it's just
an extension of what's
already out there as
an existing system.
I know within private
RCMP Facebook groups,
they don't like this
because specifically, uh,
they don't actually like
RCMP frontline officers
don't like the idea of
going into your house
and seizing stuff, a
little warrant because
RCMP officers, they do
have to go to court.
They do have to testify
on all these things
and they look at it and
go like, this is just
going to get abused.
They've all seen it.
They know that this
is just going to be
abused by a bunch of
people to ruin their
ex-husband's deer season
because newsflash, if
they take your guns.
Now, the new system
is the red flag law.
They take your guns away
for 30 days while they
do an investigation to
find out if the supposed
complaint levied against
you from a public
safety perspective
was verified or not.
The yellow flag laws
that you can't move your
guns, use your guns, buy
your guns, or sell your
guns, they're parked
in your house for 30
days while they conduct
the investigation.
The law in both cases
allows for the 30 day
period to be extended,
I believe once.
And then an additional
complaint will allow
the courts to levy these
penalties against you for
a maximum of five years.
If the complaint
has found justified,
obviously that's
different because then
the courts decide within
the framework of the law.
But yeah, 30 days
it's not judicial,
there's no judicial
oversight, and what
that means that if it
happens to you, there's
nothing you can do.
You, there's
nowhere to call.
Um, judicial oversight
is when you can call a
lawyer who can get you
in front of a judge who
can tell the government,
this is illegal,
you can't do this.
There's nothing
in this for that,
because you don't
have a right to gun.
So if the CFO says
you can't have him
for 30 days, you
have no compensation.
Um, that's
obviously insane.
Um, no one likes it and
this is where again, I
think people will find,
you know, the advertising
ban it's poorly worded.
It makes no sense.
Um, the municipal handgun
ban, unconstitutional
and completely illegal.
And talk about like, you
want to talk about, if
anything, the buyback
is going to cost two
to 5 billion, maybe up
to 8 billion, depending
on how they count it.
I think the municipal
bylaw bank could even
eclipse that amount
because the amount of
lawyers that will have
to be hired to figure
out each individual
case like, it's nuts.
Um, and I mean, when you
think like, and I know
that there are people,
oh no one's going to sue.
I guarantee you, if The
Shooting Edge is going to
be put out of business by
a municipal handgun ban,
the first phone call J.R.
Cox makes, is to
a freaking lawyer.
Like everyone thinks
about these laws from
the perspective that
individuals, but they
forget that even with the
buyback, I, you know, I
have a decent amount of
guns, but I'm probably
not suing to keep them.
A lawyer will cost me
more than the guns are
worth in some cases.
I'm not North Sylva so
if North Sylva's sitting
on millions of dollars,
worth of Bushnell AR
specific optics, okay.
Am I going to go
after the government
try and compensation?
Yes, because it's
probably easier to sue
the government to get
my full retail purchase
price and taxes and
duties and storage
out of the government
on those optics than
it is to sell them.
Because what do
you put it on now?
Right.
Um, so that, shit's just
going to go nuts, um.
Had a buddy that had an
interesting point on a
municipal handgun ban
and driving out, uh,
conservative voters.
So, his thought was that,
uh, if you have a, uh,
like a purple riding
or whatever, that could
go either way, and it
would be easy enough for
the government to say
that we're to, uh, not
implement, but, uh, sort
of point them in the
direction to, hey, maybe
you guys should implement
a municipal handgun ban.
So then the vote, the
Conservative voters at
that point have choices.
They can either get
rid of their stuff
or they can move.
Uh, and if they end up
moving, what happens
to that riding?
Well, the
riding goes red.
It almost gerrymanders
in reverse.
Yeah.
And so after, at that
point, you're picking
up seats in the house,
uh, because each one
of those ridings is a
seat and away we go.
It certainly would
increase the, the
partisanship, I mean
that rural, urban
divide and the East,
West divide, for sure.
Yeah, for sure.
And I think that relates
to the, uh, Travis
mentioned about the
centralized CFO thing.
For those that don't
know, um, CFOs do
have massive amounts
of, of leeway when
it comes to ATCs.
Um, as in like a CFO
could just issue you one.
You could, you could,
may issue or shall issue
is potentially within
reach within Canada.
If a CFO decided it was,
they would just have to
make a personal decision
and have a provincial
government that didn't
fire them for it.
Um, I mean the head of
the Saskatchewan Wildlife
Federation, I think it
was Saskatchewan Wildlife
Federation, there's
two, the Saskatchewan
Wildlife Federation,
and then another one.
I believe it was
him, Bob is his name,
he's the current
CFO of Saskatchewan.
Um, He's obviously
a gun guy, right?
So, uh, with, with
Jason Kenney potentially
higher, I think that's
what this is, there's
a Jason Kenney.
Cause there's been
lots of talk about
Jason Kenney hiring
a provincial CFO.
Yeah.
And.
So that'll be two
provinces that have.
Well, and the big thing,
and I think the Trudeau's
worry about is it Kenny
is, Kenny and Alberta
are the only province
in a position right
now to politically,
Saskatchewan could,
but they'd get crushed
by, Saskatchewan's big
enough to go up against
the national media.
So when the entire
weight of Canada comes
down on them going like,
no, you shouldn't carry
guns and Saskatchewan
might acquiesce.
Yep.
Um, but Alberta's
not like that.
And Alberta's got nothing
to lose anymore, with
all the pipeline stuff.
Yep.
Trudeau has to be looking
at it and going Jason,
like in the same way
that Trudeau looks at
this and goes, this is a
great way to get votes,
which is again why I
think it's reprehensible
because to be clear,
a 14 year old was shot
in the face and Justin
Trudeau's response was
bill C-21, which is never
going to become a law.
So instead of actually
helping kids, he's
decided to just
use them as votes.
So not done nothing,
that's the clar-,
what pisses me off.
He's done something.
He's done the
things to help.
He's chosen to get votes.
He's chosen.
Like he has the
entire weight of the
Canadian government
and armed forces behind
him, including our
strongest ally being
the United States.
And he thinks the best
way to stop kids from
shooting each other
in Toronto is taking
away my gun, which
is fucking bullshit.
So in other words,
he's choosing to use
dead kids to get votes.
That's literally
what it is.
And I would challenge,
I don't care if Rosemary
Barton wants to do
interview with me, I
would stick to my goddamn
statement on that cause
they ain't changed it.
You can't tell me
otherwise, there's no
justification for this.
Bill Blair himself said
as chief of Toronto
police, municipal handgun
bans don't make sense.
You know, and now
he's changing his
tune, because it
makes political sense.
Sure.
Of course.
I think like it's just,
you know, ugh, I got
all angry and lost my
train of thought, but.
It was good.
It was good.
We liked it.
Fucking Trudeau, man.
Um.
So replica firearms,
replica firearms are
prohibited already.
It sounds like they're
looking at some expansion
to what is deemed a
replica firearm, and that
is to include airsoft.
And so there's a whole
slew of people out
there that have never
owned firearms and not
interested in firearms
in general, right.
And I guess people, some
people listen to this
will have a distinction
and they'll think, well,
a firearm is something
that goes bang over 500
feet per second, 5.7
joules of energy, that's
a regulated firearm.
Airsoft, pellet guns
still fall under the
firearm label and if
you use, let's say a
pellet gun to go and
hold up your local
liquor store, you will be
charged with a firearms
related offence right.
And then provincially
firearms and municipally
on the firearm side.
So the, the concept
here, I guess, is
these guns that, these,
these items that kind
of look like guns.
We're going to just
make the replica law a
little bit more robust.
And of course, these
guys are going to be
affected by it, guys
and girls, of course,
they shouldn't talk
in the one way there.
But I was thinking
based on some of my
experience I've had in
the past, dealing with
different regulatory
bodies, I actually
can see a solution.
Not that I would
advocate for this.
But the solution for
the airsoft is out
there, if they still
wanted to do airsoft.
Would be to use
real firearms.
And let me explain
what I mean by that.
Mass murder.
If something
is developed.
If something is developed
as a firearm, it was
never developed to
imitate a firearm,
it was a firearm.
If you deactivate that.
And now there are
some guidelines for
deactivation and
you can exceed those
guidelines and not be
deemed deactivated or
fall below it and be
deemed deactivated.
Whatever you do once
it's deactivated in the
eyes of the law, it is
no longer a firearm.
You then pull the
guts out through some
CO2 or green gas and
the, whatever you
want inside the thing.
And you can run around
and play airsoft again
with what was originally
designed to be a firearm.
Does that make
logistical sense?
No, but if you look at
it from a, just a common
sense perspective.
Legal practicallity.
The work around for
these people to go
out here and to do it.
Yep.
It's ridiculous.
Yeah.
It.
Uh, and I think this
is where the, it can
be beneficial to take
the tenure perspective.
Um, cause I'll admit, uh,
I, I have shot airsoft.
I played airsoft when
I was a young guy
and it's tons of fun.
Um, I think taking the
guts out of real guns
and de-wating them, uh,
I think it's a great
argument because it
really addresses the
core cause of this,
of if the problem
is criminals running
around with replica
firearms and using them
to intimidate people
and police not knowing
the difference because,
legitimately, they don't.
Right.
I mean, these guns
are very realistic so.
Sure.
If the problem is
coming from the law
enforcement caucus
in the Liberal party,
um, and as people like
Harjit Sajjan, getting,
getting things from his
ex VPD guys, which I
seriously doubt he is,
but nonetheless, um.
Yeah.
That could be what
steering this, if, if
the practical solution
for airsoft is, well
we'll just use real guns,
the gangbangers will be
right behind them, right?
Like, if a gangbanger
goes, okay so my airsoft
gun that I used to steal
from the airsoft store
is no longer available.
I guess we'll just go
to the surplus store
and steal that de-wated
handgun that they've
got hanging from
the ceiling, right?
Like, or they'll just
get a real gun or they'll
just produce / continue
to trade an airsoft guns.
Cause I mean the big
thing there's, how
many of these are soft,
guns are out there.
And I got to say
like, I brought this
up with the OIC.
If they ban M14's
say right, they're
not registered.
So there is literally,
and this is just reality,
if a gang banger goes
into a gun store in
rural Alberta and says,
I will give you $8,000
for that M14, and I
know it's illegal, just
grind off the serial
number and that gun shop
owner is going well.
Trudeau's just past
C-21, my city might
put me out of business.
I could really use the
eight grand right now.
I'm gonna eat all the
money from all these.
Yeah, right.
Like you're putting
people in between a
rock and a hard place.
And then basically you're
putting them in a rock
and a hard place that is
also like front of the
line for organized crime
to take advantage of.
So, I mean, if you
don't think that that
gang bangers and, and
people that criminals
that would want to
obtain these things for
nefarious reasons, don't
go into airsoft for sale
groups and buy airsoft
guns for this reason.
You're insane.
Absolutely.
They do same as they
do on any gun for them.
They're on CG and
they're everywhere
trying to get guns.
It's just the fact that
gun owners are generally
pretty, um, fastidious
with their, with their
documentation and
checking PAL's that it's
not really a problem.
Yeah.
So I think that's
evidence, the system
works, but it's so
weird to me that the
government and the
people that elected
them that were like, I
love these guys because
they're going to make
pot legal and then we
can just stop that whole
crime from happening.
And we can dedicate law
enforcement resources
to better crimes.
And you know, when you
make something illegal
and you prohibit it, it
just makes it into the
black market and we can't
control that anyways.
Look at prohibition
or the same people
that turn around and
go, well, we'll make
airsoft guns illegal.
These made in, made in
China, Chinese things
that are dirt cheap,
that are imported by the
million, that are sold
by companies like Walmart
by the, literally like
Walmart orders, hundreds
and hundreds and hundreds
of thousands of airsoft
guns every calendar year.
And they think,
yeah, we'll make
those things illegal.
A bunch of 13 year olds
turning in their Tokyo
Marui Beretta 92's that
they paid 300 bucks
after they did newspaper
route for six weeks.
You know, not that I'm
bitter or anything,
thing broke after
two days, but.
Yep.
Got into real guns
afterwards, it was
a way better way.
Um, but it's just, yeah,
it's such a, like when
you put it into the
realistic perspective,
that's the, like the
comical part, because
when people read it as
a legislation or as an
order paper item, or as
a legislative summary,
it has all the way to
the federal government
behind it and Justin
Trudeau and all this
pomp and circumstance.
And then you go like,
wait, so you're telling
me a cop is going to go
up to a 12 year old and
he's, and be like, that's
a prohibited device,
get on the ground.
Like, is that
what we want.
I thought we were
in for less of that.
Are they, they're banned
for import now as well
by that, are they not?
I think so.
Yeah.
I think I read.
Yeah, CBSA does all
the funky stuff because
even before they.
Yeah, they just do
whatever they want.
Declared it illegal,
they ban it.
So that's going to be
an issue for the film
industry in a lot of
ways, because, uh, uh,
airsoft guns, gas guns,
are a huge portion of
what takes place and even
more so now, uh, with the
way the film industry is.
With all the safety
stuff that's going on.
I know in Vancouver,
uh, there's productions
that I used to work on
that no longer allow
any, uh, real guns on
set and that's written
into their contracts.
Uh, so when they're
dealing with, uh,
firearms and shooting and
all that kind of stuff,
uh, In their production
uh, it's basically CGI'd
with, uh, airsoft guns.
So as you well know, like
you already mentioned,
airsoft guns break and
they fall apart and they
don't last very long.
Constantly.
Constantly.
Uh, and so there
is not an unlimited
supply of airsoft
guns uh, in Canada.
So at some point, those
are going to run out.
So I would ask what
they're going to
do at that point.
They've already, uh,
made it so that, uh,
productions can't
use real firearms
written into their
production contracts.
Then, now the
airsoft guns are
all basically gone.
Um, and anything really
that looks like a real
gun is, uh, going to be a
prohibited as a replica.
So where do they
go from there?
And the part that kind
of, kind of makes me
interested is that a lot
of the people in film
obviously voted for, uh,
you know, it's for film
is fairly hardcore left.
They voted this stuff
in, uh, basically without
really understanding the
full impact of what kind
of problems is going
to cause, even possibly
in their own job.
And I think.
I'm reminded of
some of the facebook
arguments there.
Well, I know for a fact.
I know for a fact
that some people are
suddenly realizing what
is going to happen, uh,
possibly to their job.
Or to the amount of
jobs that they get, or
even the TV shows and
productions and movies
that arrive in Vancouver
and, and undoubtedly the
rest of Canada, because
we'll be all under
the same, uh, rules.
So, um, you know, action
films were a huge thing.
That's basically
what I worked on
back in the day.
Action films, TV shows,
all that kind of stuff
and a lot of that, in
my opinion, is probably
going to have some
issues with coming up.
You know what they do,
they make an exception.
They can make
an exception.
Yes.
And then if they're going
to make an exception on
that, you have to turn
around and say, well,
what was the point of
this to begin with?
Yeah.
And why in the
beginning then, if
this is not a problem.
But that's where, so
like when I was, when,
for the, for the Senate
testimony, when they
email you for it, they
basically give you some
instructions right.
And they don't tell you
what to say or anything
like not, it's obviously
like it's very, very,
very professional.
So anyone listening,
it's very cool.
It's a really
neat thing to do.
But if you ever
get a chance to
highly recommend it.
But they tell you
like you can't
change big things.
Like when the Senate
gets it to start
making amendments.
And even when the
parliamentary committee
start getting it to make
amendments, like the
bill should be a little
bit closer to, to ready.
And actually like what
Ryan brings up with
regards to the film
industry, cause I thought
that right away as well.
I mean, anyone that
lives in Vancouver
can't help, but think
of that, especially in
the gun world, because
film armourer's in
Vancouver are like
a big, big deal, um.
And with Netflix and
in with the, with the
streaming services
now buying so much
more content, like
the hours of content
being produced now.
Uh, I mean, Ryan, you
don't better than I, but
I'm pretty sure it's,
it's just gotta be a
lot more actual hours.
Even when I was getting
out of the industry.
Was already climbing
The Netflix shows and
stuff were growing
exponentially.
They were building,
uh, studios in BC
specifically to do
Netflix productions.
And Netflix, those
shows can't afford
the real guns, right?
Like, I didn't know.
It was like, I knew
that film was going
more towards gas guns.
I thought it was
a cost thing.
Not so much a
safety thing.
I knew the safety
was there, obviously.
Yeah.
It's more of a
safety thing.
It doesn't really
make any difference
to the production.
They, they end up
renting, um, either a
gas gun or a real gun and
they can operate those
on set without one of
us there, without one of
the armourer's generally.
Providing the, the prop
master has a you know,
a firearms license and
there's somebody there.
Gotchya.
That can deal with it.
I think it's just
evidence though that
this exception isn't
already baked into the
law is, is another case
of, I just don't think
they really intended
this to go the distance.
Like I think they
basically just
drafted this thinking.
Yeah, it's about, it
looks to me to be a law
that is about 60% of
the way to something
that's actually
capable of being.
It's not thought
through it all really.
No, no.
So.
They didn't consult
anybody on where
it's gonna go.
And I mean, in some ways
we can probably take a
little bit of like, oh,
that's good, because
I'm glad to hear they
didn't waste a bunch of
time drafting a law they
didn't intend to pass.
I'm glad they just wasted
minimal amounts of our
time drafting a law they
didn't intend to pass,
at a time when there's
some other stuff that
they probably have on
their priority table.
But yeah, that, that
film thing, how many,
so percentage wise,
when you were working,
or if you have any idea
now from like talking
to people that, mutual
contacts and all like
what's the percentage
between real guns
and gas guns on film?
Uh.
In your experience
in Vancouver, just
in your experience.
When I was working, and
I think I left at the
end of 2015, I would
say it was probably,
I bet you, it was
probably 60% airsoft.
Really?
Gas guns.
And you think it's
gone up from there?
It's a hundred percent
gone up because
there were still all
the WB shows like
Supernatural and, uh.
God I love that show.
Aero and all those, uh.
God I hate that show.
All the superhero
um, uh, stuff, the
DC comic shows.
I worked on all of those
and, uh, it was pretty
regular, like Arrow, we'd
you know, I have M 60
machine guns out on it
and handguns all kinds
of different things.
Now uh, none of those
shows uh, allow live
fire, like real blank
fire going on on them.
Do you feel like that
decision was made,
was that decision
made entirely from a
safety perspective or
do you feel there was
a degree of politics
in that decision?
Um, I think it, I
think it was a cover
your ass decision,
uh, there, especially.
Lawyers, liability.
Yeah.
Liability for sure.
I mean, we were always
going through issues, uh,
uh, with the production
lawyers wanting to
rewrite the contracts and
all that kind of stuff.
Uh, like our liability
contracts that we
added at the time, and
it was always a big
huge back and forth.
And I think eventually it
came to the point where
they're like, well, you
don't need a liability
contract when, uh, when
you're running airsoft.
So it's a, it's a
safety issue, so let's
just get rid of the
real live fire guns.
And that, in turn got
basically rid of the
armourer's unless there
was something specific
that there wasn't an
airsoft gun for there's
no airsoft 50 cal's.
So if you had those
out on set yet
to have the guys.
But now, it's,
it's different.
Well, sucks to be
film industry guy
all of a sudden.
I don't know how
the film industry.
Yeah.
You know, I got
buddies that.
Especially with our
dollar being at that
money spot for film
normally too, right?
Yup.
Yup.
Yup.
I mean, it should be a
very lively with the,
with the dollar and
everything right now
and the tax credits
and all that stuff, you
should be pretty lively
here, but, um, all the
people I stay in contact
with, if they're like,
eh, there's, you know,
it's, it's moderately
busy at this point.
You were talking about
putting something on
the back of the license
and putting conditions
on the back of the
license earlier and it
just brought to mind
the back of my license.
And by virtue of my age
alone, I was not able to
get a 25 or 32 calibre
handgun or short barreled
firearm, a section
12.6 type firearm, but
I was able to get a
12.7 inherited firearm.
And you know what
happened when my
license renewed?
I bet you do.
You know what happened.
I don't.
To my 12.7?
Okay.
Well, this might be an
interesting one that
you can write about
in Calibre magazine.
Uh, my 12.7 inherited
it turned into a
12.6 and guess what I
could purchase and buy
and sell other 12.6
firearms from other
individuals out there.
And I was concerned,
I thought like,
what's going on here?
And I had actually,
you know, in a CYA way,
contacted the firearms
programming, um, like
what's going on here?
And they said we
don't make mistakes,
you're 12.6, we
don't make mistakes.
Okay, fair enough,
I got it in
writing, good to go.
I can buy, sell all the
rest, but the interesting
thing was, it didn't
just happen to me.
It happened to every
other 12.7 inherited.
Really?
Firearms owner in Canada.
I've got pictures of
the license and I've
talked to other 12.7
owners who became 12.6.
And now they've got a
situation where they
got, some people, myself,
by virtue of age, I was
never able to even take
advantage of the 12.6,
who were able to purchase
other firearms and sell
the firearms and they
had to turn around and
try and quietly clean
up this little mess.
So when we look at these
laws, when we look at
C-21 and even if we were
to say this was the most
well thought out in their
intention in the way
they're going, we can't
discount human error in
these things and what
those implications will
have to the individual
and to the businesses.
Like for example, in
the film industry, um,
just, just an interesting
aside on all of that.
And if you wanted
to write on that
in Caibre Mag.
I'm interested.
I'm kind of curious,
I'm interested into why.
Cause I thought that
was, I actually looked
into that a few years
ago when I, I got the
impression that it
was pretty expressly
included for most of
the assets I looked at
that like, that was not
supposed to be the case.
Like I, a 12.7 was
supposed to be 12.7,
you get inherited only.
They made a mistake.
You're supposed to
be expanded, but
if it's happening
to everyone, um.
Every single
12.7 became 12.6.
That sounds more like an
internal policy change
because legitimately
once that stuff's like,
I could see if yours did
once and I could see the
CFO saying we don't make
mistakes to cover yours.
But if it's everyone's,
that's, that's an
internal, that's a.
That's an error.
An ATIP that I need
to file to say, like,
why is this happening?
Cause there's
something happened.
There would have been
an internal, like from
my knowledge of how
the firearms program
works, there would
have been something
internal circulated to
dictate that transition
occurring because
it's changed, right?
Like it's, they,
they didn't renew
your license.
They changed
your license.
They had to do
something to do so.
Have you renewed
since that went down?
I have.
And it stayed?
Until the point
where they had to
correct it all.
And they had to course
correct with all other
12.7's who we're, became
12.6 and they have
changed them all back.
Hmm.
Hmm.
That's weird.
So that that could
be human error.
That could be
computer glitch.
That could be
whatever it might be.
But when we started
going down this road of
trying to make policy
and trying to make laws
and regulations, we have
to look at it like you
were saying from, Daniel,
from the perspective
of the victim or the
person and how, how they
will be impacted on it.
We have to look at it
from the perspective
of the film industry,
from the individual
owner and how, how
they may be impacted.
But what rights are we
giving away when we bring
these things in, should
a mistake like this
happened to happen and
they happen more often
than you would think.
Well, that's why I
would say like my big
take home message for
people when I've done
radio interviews, is
always TV and stuff is
just don't you have an
amnesty period, use it.
Like the government
has given you that
amnesty period, just
like they give you back
some money at tax time,
you know, use it like
when the government
gives you something,
take it and use it.
Um, so don't do anything
until then, because
the more time elapses,
the more this stuff
will get fleshed out.
And for all we know,
I mean the long gun
registry amnesty
continued until the long
gun registry ended so.
In your opinion Dan,
is this gonna, is this
gonna stretch on and the
amnesty will have to be
extended at some point?
It'll have to.
I mean, that's, that's
kinda my thought.
I think the amnesety
extension will be
predicated by the
compliance rate.
Yeah.
And the compliance rate
is going to be dismal.
So the amnesty will be
extended indefinitely
because at the end of
the day, they don't want
to reach a point where,
because that's what
the, that's what the
liberals got into with
long and registry, right?
Was it was people that
may have supported
it initially.
Um, even in a
passing way.
Like I know people, I
was at the Vancouver
Gun Club arguing why the
long gun registry should
die when it was first
killed because people
that shoot shotguns at
clay pigeon sometimes
think gun control is good
and in that discussion,
like you just kind of
go like it's, I don't
know, man like, I don't.
No one will comply and
the government will
be stuck with this.
Like, do we put
everyone in jail?
Yeah, how do we
deal with it?
Or, or is, or is leaving
the thread of that over
their head, ostracizing
voters, like, like.
Let's say you're the,
it's 150,000 AR fifteens
in the country, 130,
whatever it is, right.
There's a lot more
Norinco M14's in the
country, a lot more.
SKS's.
A lot of SKS, but the
big one is I use the M14
specifically, because
I think it's the most,
maybe the Mini 14, is
maybe the most popular,
newly prohibited
firearm, right.
Um, If I have an M14,
but I don't own AR15.
I feel a bit
insulated from Justin
Trudeau's gun ban.
I probably feel somewhat
slighted by it by going
like, I can't use my
M14, but you got to
remember too, like we
are all hardcore gun
guys for whom guns are
part of our daily lives.
For a lot of people,
their M14 might be
something they haven't
seen in two years, right?
They, they got it
before they had kids,
they were shooting
with their buddies.
Everyone had kids
shooting less and less.
He keeps it for the
eventual hunting trip
he plans to go on
at some point in the
next 10 years, right?
He probably doesn't
like AR-15's because
he probably looks
at the headlines and
he's never been in
the gun world, and he
thinks it's a quote,
unquote, weapon of war.
Like these are the
sorts of people
that Justin shows.
He's not worried
about us because he
knows where we stand.
Yeah.
But it's those sorts
of people for whom the
amnesty will be extended
because he'll be looking
at those guys going,
if I keep looking like
I'm going to throw this
guy in jail, he might
vote for someone else.
If I keep looking, like
I, I don't really mean
to hurt him, this is
intended to like, if the
law says I'm going after
legal gun owners, but the
government does not go
after legal gun owners,
by default, a whole bunch
of those legal gun owners
will still vote for the
party that is not going
after them because they
are not doing the thing
they said they would do.
Not following
through yeah.
And the Conservatives
need to realize
is talk is cheap.
The Liberals talk all
the time and then they
don't do anything, like
they won't take the guns,
even out of the houses.
Like when you actually
think about those
arguments, the anti-gun
people said of like,
you've promised to take
assault weapons off the
street, et cetera, et
cetera and now you're
just going to let
everyone keep them.
If you were an anti-gun
person and you'd
spent years lobbying,
you would be super
super angry, right?
Like.
Mhmm.
I think there are a few
that are pretty angry.
You finally get, you
listened to Bill Blair
across the table, tell
you, yeah, we're making,
we have the single
strongest anti-gun bill
in Canada's history and
you go, but everyone
gets to keep their AR-15?
Like, I'm sure they're
just as pissed as we
are, because we're
coming at it from
the opposite sides of
this is not going to
do what either of us.
Were allies.
And that's the ironic
part is we argue with
the people that are on
like, and some of them
aren't on the same team
because I'll admit like
some of the groups.
Just want all guns gone.
They don't want you
to hunt, they don't
want you to have any
guns, no guns at all,
they don't like guns.
They're hoplophobic.
And they've managed
to find a way to turn
that into a hobby.
But for by and large,
a lot of things,
these people, and
we've seen it.
Cause there have been
some people that started
out on a staunchly
anti-gun argument that
if you say, look, I'm
on your side dude,
like I'm not, I don't.
I'd like to keep my
guns that's, but that's
besides the point.
What I want to do is save
lives and stop these kids
from shooting each other
and stop the suicides and
stop this and stop that.
Then oh, okay, all right
then, this, they start to
nod their head and they
go, this makes sense.
You're on the same side.
Okay, yeah.
You know, and if
humanizes us a bit too,
but it also gives us
some credibility that
we're, we're kind of
lacking these days.
Empathy.
Yeah, it's empathy, a bit
of, yeah, so it's hard
though, because I mean,
the other thing too is,
I think for Canadian's
at large, it's really
hard because the people
that are victimized
by these crimes are
always, and I'll say
this, this is showing
to sound super woke
myself, this is showing
my own privilege, so I'll
freely admit that I am.
The people that are
victimized by a lot
of these crimes are
people that are not, the
people like myself have
trouble associating with.
I am not a gang banger,
I've never been involved
in the drug trade, I'm
not a violent person,
in the freaking least,
um, So for me, it's,
it's another world.
It's like reading about.
I mean, when I read about
the stories that come
out of Jane and Finch in
some of those downtown
areas of Toronto, I've
been down there, I've
driven down there um,
it's pretty eyeopening.
Yeah.
It's pretty crazy.
But it doesn't
feel like Canada.
Like, it doesn't feel
like the Canada I
know, cause I come from
the mountains of BC.
Like I drove through
downtown Toronto,
looking at the, the areas
where these shootings
happen and I go like,
well, like I don't even
recognize this place.
It's another world.
And when I see the
headlines coming out of
those areas, it feels
like something else and
I think that's what,
especially because gun
owners are typically, we
have higher than average
household incomes.
We have more
stable lives.
We have more complete
family units amongst
our population than
the national averages.
And that gives us a
different perspective
that is, it makes it
hard for gun owners to,
it makes it very hard,
I think for gun owners
to have sympathy and
empathy for the people
on both ends of these
violent crimes, because.
And you see it writ large
amongst the population
that more people have
been killed by opioid
overdoses than by COVID.
But more people
are willing to make
massive concessions
to their daily lives
because of the COVID.
But no one would make a
single concession about
opioids because quote
unquote, the people that
overdose are not like me.
And that's, if you want
to know where I think
Canada is going wrong,
that's where it is.
And it's across the board
and it's it's, we just
don't read out the gang
bangers and gun owners.
It's almost like
they're proud to
say that's not me.
Instead of going, that
could have been me.
He's one of us.
There by the grace
of God go I, right?
Like, your childhood
unfolds a little bit
differently, you know?
Yeah, exactly.
That could be you.
That's good.
Well, Daniel, Ryan,
thank you very much.
This was an
excellent podcast
listeners out there.
If you have thoughts,
please let us know.
You can email them,
leave them on YouTube.
Leave them in the, in
the comments on the, uh,
the podcast there., make
sure checkout Calibre
Magazine, there's plenty
of good content in the
magazine, just like
you've been hearing
from Daniel here.
And if you want to
take your rifle to
11 checkout IBI, get
yourself an IBI barrel.
Thanks guys.
Oh, thanks for having us.
Yeah, likewise.
And I'll continue
to be the strongest
reason why these
podcasts need a mute
button for the guests.
No.
Need to talk more
and not less Dan.
Absolutely.
I'm trying, we're hoping.