Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
______
Silvercore Club - https://bit.ly/2RiREb4
Online Training - https://bit.ly/3nJKx7U
Other Training & Services - https://bit.ly/3vw6kSU
Merchandise - https://bit.ly/3ecyvk9
Blog Page - https://bit.ly/3nEHs8W
Host Instagram - @Bader.Trav https://www.instagram.com/bader.trav
Silvercore Instagram - @SilvercoreOutdoors https://www.instagram.com/silvercoreoutdoors
____
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.
Silvercore has been providing its
members with a skills and knowledge
necessary to be confident and proficient
in the outdoors for over 20 years, and
we make it easier for people to deepen
their connection to the natural world.
If you enjoy the positive and educational
content we provide, please let others
know by sharing, commenting, and
following so that you can join in on
everything that Silvercore stands for.
If you'd like to learn more
about becoming a member of the
Silvercore Club and community,
visit our website at Silvercore.ca
I'm joined today by a man who
have known for many years.
And I'm excited to introduce him to
this Silvercore Podcast audience.
He has been published in the
Harvard journal of law, public
policy journal of criminal justice,
Canadian journal of criminology,
government, and policy, and much more.
He's been an expert witness on firearms
and criminal justice issues in the Senate
of Canada, the Canadian parliament, the
New Zealand parliament, the Supreme court
of Canada and the Ontario Supreme court.
He's accredited as an expert in small
arms control with United nations
international small arms control
standards, and previously sat on the
Canadian firearms advisory committee
under our previous federal government.
Welcome to the Silvercore
Podcast,, Gary maser.
Thank you very much for having me.
I'm looking forward to,
uh, enjoyable interview.
Gary and what you have been
doing over your lifetime.
Of research for firearms owners and
for, for everybody in, in Canada,
who has any interest in, uh, in
firearms has been rather immense.
And I'm kind of curious.
How you got into this?
Well, it was, um, really a matter of
me when I was in my early forties.
Uh, I'd been estranged from
my father for over 20 years.
Mm.
Uh, he.
He, and I were not friendly as a teenager.
I was a very obnoxious egotistical college
kid and he was a great eight dropout and,
uh, uh, authoritarian, tyrant and stuff.
And anyway, at when I turned
21, he gave me a rifle.
Mm.
And I was still a, a undergraduate at, at
Berkeley university, California, Berkeley
mm-hmm and living with, uh, a gaggle of
roommates that changed every semester.
So it was totally
inappropriate, I thought.
And in any case, uh, I didn't know
anything about guns and cared less, so
I was very obnoxious in rejecting it.
Hmm.
Uh, and so when I turned 40, I thought
the good way to get back to, and, and
start a relationship with my dad was
to pick this rifle up and, and bring
it home to, to Canada at that time.
Hmm.
So.
That meant a couple of things.
First of all, I had to figure out what
the laws were and, and that surprised me.
I thought they were stupid and, and,
and, and, and obnoxious at the time.
But at the time they were, uh, just
FAC I had to get a, fill out a form
and get a, a police, uh, screen.
And that wasn't all that hard.
Right.
But it was, it was new to me.
Uh, but when I went down to the RCMP
in Coquitlam to file the form, the
fellow behind the, the window, uh,
took it and threw it across the room
at his piled, a full of papers desk.
And I thought.
They don't take this seriously.
no and, and the guy limped a
little bit and seemed angry.
Okay.
And I guess that reflected
the way the RCMP dealt with
wounded warriors at the time mm.
Was to put 'em in paper, shuffling,
useless jobs, they would think.
Right.
And so I asked him, uh, how long
will it take to process this?
Uh . And he said, oh, you
know, a couple of weeks.
So in a couple of weeks I went back and,
uh, the desk was still full of paper.
And, uh, I said, I came from my paper.
Have you done it yet?
Who were you?
so he, he rumages through this and
papers are fallen everywhere and he
pulls it out and he hadn't looked at
it or any of the other ones signed
it in front of me and gave it to me.
And that I got my FAC that was
it.
He just wanted to let
you wait a couple weeks.
Well, that
basically it, he just
didn't wanna be bothered.
Yeah.
I don't think there was any plan other
than, you know, you bugged me go away.
Yeah.
um, anyway, so I, I, I got it.
And I went down to California
to pick up the rifle.
And of course I had to figure out
American rules and California,
Washington and Oregon rules.
Yes.
And import rules and all that.
And I had no idea eventually I
get it back home and it's laying
on my, on my, uh, kitchen table.
And I think what the hell is it?
How, how I don't understand this
thing, but even before that, uh,
because I didn't understand guns.
When I picked it up from my father, he
was so excited to, to let that I cared.
Oh, that's cool.
And, and I had to ask
him, dad, what is this?
Why, why did you want me to have a rifle?
Mm-hmm, , you know, I'm a student, right.
And it's kinda awkward.
Uh, and he launched into this
explanation and I could see he cared.
I could see this was part
of his life, his culture.
It was important to him, none of which
I'd ever known or bothered to care about.
sure.
And, and, and I, anyway, it
started a relationship with
my father for the first time.
And that really, uh, made me
feel good and made him feel good.
And that probably helped him.
Do
you think people would be surprised when
you talk about a gun culture in Canada?
Cause I've heard some.
Uh, knowledgeable people, firearms
type people who say, ah, Canada
doesn't have a GU a gun culture,
which I would highly disagree with.
Would you?
Uh, well, my dad grew up in rural,
uh, South Dakota and he, uh, was
a small town boy, not a, a, a.
Much outdoorsy guy, but
he did know about guns.
He did think guns were, were part of, of
growing up and he cared about history.
So to him, this rifle, which was a German
K 98, and it was a Maer and that's of
course my family name and his mm-hmm
So he wanted us to be
linked to this history.
He wasn't a Nazi German or anything.
It was just the, the, the
accidental congruent of the
name and that it was history.
And he always explained that to me.
And so again, when I got back to
Canada and looked at this thing, I
thought, why did the Germans in world
war II have a world war I rifle?
Mm.
Okay.
Most of the other countries started off
world war II on, on their flat feet.
Also with world war I weapons,
but they quickly got, got better
rifles, uh, uh, England, the, the us.
Uh, France, uh, uh, Russia in Germany
kept up with this ancient thing.
Why?
And okay.
And then how does it shoot?
Uh, how do I learn?
How to shoot?
And so I just started asking all
kinds of questions about guns,
history, uh, where to go shoot.
And my curiosity just got outta control.
no kidding.
Well, you still seem highly curious on
this because you're still in the field.
You're still researching.
You're still looking at history
and you're looking using
that to look forward as well.
Well, um, my current work that I'm
I'm, uh, trying to assemble is to
ask the question, why did Canada
or Canadian elite abandon the.
To arm yourself in personal defense.
Mm.
Both Canada and us were founded, uh,
really by idealistic, uh, uh, Britains,
both had had ideas about how to be
better than England, but they also
kept important English traditions and
both believed at, at the founding of
both countries that they had English
rights, such as arm, self defense.
Uh, us was revolutionary.
Canada was more traditional it's even
been called counter revolutionary
mm-hmm , but essentially they kept the
English traditions, uh, of social class.
Mm.
The elite are, should be an are in
control and the commoners should respect
them and, and follow their betters.
Mm-hmm so where the us.
Uh, thought that the second amendment
was a, a way to protect God, given
rights of, uh, individual arm protection.
Canada also believed the same thing.
Mm-hmm uh, the first gun control
laws didn't, uh, come into a
effect until after sir, John A.
McDonald, uh, died because he
kept them out of parliament.
Mm.
He thought that that English rights
included that and the gun control
that had been proposed would, would
limit that, uh, after he died, the
permits were mandated, uh, for handgun.
Usage.
Mm.
In other words, anybody who wanted to
walk around town with a handgun had to
get a, a court permit and, uh, to do that
meant you had to go talk to a judge this
implies and was meant to imply that only
the better sorts could get such permits.
Right.
It's and this, this was
sparked because of Irish.
Okay, who were not British subjects
of equal importance, as sure.
Now, you know, this we're saying British
mm-hmm , these are English rights,
but because Canada was started and run
by Scotts, God forbid that SCOs would
cut themselves out of their own power.
Mm-hmm nobody'd do that.
No, no.
Why would you come on?
But we had Irish canal workers who
were, were carrying guns and they
were, uh, dangerous, or we were
concerned about them perceived to be
dangerous, seemed to be dangerous.
How could these lowly people have firearms
and, and so that set the
pattern for really, uh, until.
Today that one needs a permit
in order to carry a gun.
Uh, and at first you noticed,
we're talking about handguns yes.
Outside the home.
Yeah.
Even the people who pass these gun control
laws thought that these lowly Irish
had rights to have guns in the home.
Mm-hmm . And plus we're talking
about developed Canada or,
uh, Eastern central Canada.
Mm-hmm the west had native Indians
or aboriginals and may Sur John a even
allowed the MayT to have gun rights,
because like recognize
that God given right.
Broad.
Right.
And, and that, you know, that's one
of those phrases, that'll get some
people's hackles up, God given.
Right.
What do you mean you've got a
God given right to own firearms?
Well, it's, it's not to own firearms
necessarily as a singular thing,
but the ability to defend yourself,
I would say is an innate human.
God given, right.
It,
it certainly is.
It's universal.
Yes.
Be before there was government, there
were people who wanted to hurt you
or animals who wanted to hurt you.
And you had a, a natural.
Uh, right to stop someone or something to
hurt you, um, in the English formulation,
particularly the Canada formulation,
it's the government grant rights.
Yes.
And where they came from
originally is not stressed.
Uh, God just mentioned a few times,
but mm-hmm, it's not part of it.
The revolutionary Americans make it clear
that rights come first and government's
job is to protect those rights.
How did
Canada fall so far away from that?
And
that's the paper I wanted
to, and I am working on.
Yeah.
Uh, and gradually this notion
of social class or, or, or
racism, whatever you wanna.
Call it, uh, was repeated
at first these things.
Well, you've gotta remember early
laws were UN unable to be enforced
mm-hmm . So parliaments would pass
laws year after year and try, or maybe
not even try, but after a while with
development of, of, uh, better up on a,
of a better powerful government states
and police, these things were enforced.
So we have handguns.
We had no twice in world war
I, the parliament was worried
about returning soldiers.
So this is not an ethnic thing.
This is in the wake of the revolution
in Russia, the, uh, uh, anarchists in,
in Canada that returning soldiers might
use their firearms, uh, uh, nefariously.
They were.
Proper people were concerned.
So all guns had to get a
permit, long guns included.
There was such a humane cry.
People were so upset that, uh, it was,
uh, uh, avoided for British subjects, but
not for, not for not British it's that
funny.
They can send them off to war, be
warriors, protect their rights, protect
their freedoms, and then come back
and be like, ah, you're kind of scary.
We're afraid of you.
Ah, well, that's
take your teeth out.
That's traditional, uh, in English,
uh, culture, the soldier is only,
uh, cared about and supported when
he is needed before and after they're
dumped on the streets like trash.
Yeah, it's uh, pretty sad.
When you think about it, it's, it's
pretty obnoxious.
Yes.
Uh, and then the, in 1934, the RCMP,
uh, uh, registers handguns, right?
All handguns for everybody.
But again, permits are, are allowed.
If you go see, uh, the judge or later
the police, and again, only better sorts
banks could have these stores could
have these at their place of business.
Mm-hmm and, uh, again, you could
have one at, at home, uh, but with
a permit mm-hmm uh, so now it's
all per handguns all the time, but
again, the better sorts get permits.
And
why do you think handguns were the,
were the first thing to go after?
Like, I've got some theories on
this, but, um, I mean they're
smaller, they're way less powerful
than a, than a rifle would be.
And, uh, people talk about concealability.
Okay.
Well, Uh, what traditionally back
in the day, why do you think they
thought, okay, handguns are the
thing we should start going after?
Well, there, there was a, a, a militia
culture Canadians, uh, uh, king or queen
supporting Canadians anyway, uh, were
encouraged and sometimes forced to be
in the militia to defend the country.
And these were long guns and
people had their private guns as
well as government issued guns.
So long guns were always tolerable
and up until the seventies long guns
were not even considered firearms.
Mm.
They were not in firearms legislation.
Interesting.
That's right.
Yeah.
I mean, the province's,
uh, restricted hunting.
Sure.
Which, which was a long gun activity.
Mm-hmm uh, but the federal government
didn't consider firearms legislation.
But the thing that fascinates me is that
where the elite abandoned their notion
of arm, self defense, the public did not.
Mm.
Um, my surveys show that, uh,
A majority of almost all social
groups support the right to defend
themselves with a gun in, in extremity.
Mm-hmm so my, my question was, if
you or your family were attacked,
uh, violently attacked and you needed
to defend yourself, would you use
a gun if you had, if you had one?
Yes.
That's a pretty simple question.
Yes.
Pretty straightforward question.
Yes.
And people who wanna restrict handguns,
wanna band guns, uh, uh, men, women,
all provinces, uh, people think
this is a reasonable thing to do.
Right.
And cuz fundamentally, you know,
I've had this conversation with
people before at the end of the day,
everybody is in it for themself, no
matter how altruistic they can be
there at, there's gonna be some point
there's gonna be some line in the sand.
Right.
And I had a friend over and
she's like, Nope, not me.
I'm not like that.
I said, okay, our house is burning down.
She said, I didn't have to finish yet.
She's like, I'm grabbing
my daughter first.
Right.
there you go.
There is a point.
Some people that point is very close
to their everyday life and they're
just in it for themselves completely.
But most people don't think
about these kinds of things.
And when, uh, they are attacked,
they have to make decisions quickly.
Yes.
Uh, decisions are not really prepared
for and sometimes they do it badly.
So
part of the, I guess, uh, distrust
of the soldiers, when they
come back, would that be just.
And I'm just speculating here.
Maybe just a deep seated or an
innate fear of a power structure
that might be imbalanced.
If the elites say, Hey, we
wanna do something, but maybe
they won't listen to us.
And they've got the ability to.
Fight back if they wanted to.
Well,
the, if you, if you look, the early
gun laws were passed by the better
sorts to defend against concerns
about the not acceptable sorts.
Right.
But these were Irish or Italian
or, uh, east European or later on
Asians, it was not British subjects.
Mm.
Except for post world war I,
where it was returning soldiers.
Mm.
Then in the twenties, it was
Chevi the, uh, Winnipeg general
strike, uh, right after the
communist, uh, revolution in Russia.
Common turn was, was, was the source
of much concern around the world, uh,
that who went and the common turn wanted
to formulate revolution everywhere.
Mm-hmm um, And then in world war II,
uh, all guns were, uh, uh, registered.
Although neither these registration
efforts, neither handgun nor
world war II were very effective.
Mm-hmm something like half or, I mean,
numbers are hard to get ahold of sure.
Sure.
But, but the various reports or something
like half were, were never registered.
Mm.
And then after the war, they,
they, the concerns died down.
But both these give hints
that the, the government, the
really doesn't trust anyone.
Mm-hmm, not just those
unacceptable new immigrants.
Right, right.
Ah, that's a, uh,
interesting world to live in.
Isn't it , but, and, and some people,
you know, when I, when I first, so
I I've been, I think I met you when
I was 5, 6, 7 years old, originally
back at a hack show in, uh, uh,
where were they operating out of?
Not the P and E at the time, or was at
the, not the operating engineers hall.
Uh Renfru they were there
for an big engineers
hall.
Yeah,
yeah, yeah.
Anyways.
Um, and I would see people and they'd
have stickers and I see all these
crazy gun people and the confis, uh,
registration leads to confiscation.
Everyone would say, and they'd have
all of these theories, but either I'm
thoroughly in the echo chamber now , or.
or there is a lot of reality to that.
And, and there is a oppositional us
against them sort of view between
those that would make the laws
and those who would own firearms.
Well, the other thing that I'm discovering
and looking at this history of firearms
legislation is that while the United
States was set up as a revolutionary
government, they had this notion
that governments were always anywhere
everywhere, corruptible, and the way
to fight that was to divide the powers.
So in principle, executive, legislative
and judicial were separate sources of
power and, and they should fight with
each other check and balance is the
phrase, uh, in order to make sure that
that, uh, the people could avoid tyranny.
Mm, the British parliamentary,
particularly the Canadian
one is very centralized.
everything is run out of
the prime minister's office.
He appoints the Supreme court judges.
He appoints the Senate, he runs the
parliament mm-hmm . So the prime
minister, uh, in any, uh, political
party is the de facto power.
Right.
And that means they can
do whatever they want.
Mm-hmm
yeah.
And it gets interesting when it starts
coming down to property rights in
general firearms, firearms rates are
one thing that people say, well, I
don't know, firearms, what do I care?
Right.
And someone got shot, or I
heard about it in the news.
I don't like that.
Sure.
Get rid of guns.
That solves a problem, right?
Just like banning drugs
gets rid of drug problems.
Well, and, and that
raises the general issue.
How does the public form factions in order
to stand up for whatever their concerns
are and how do these factions have,
have power to influence the government?
The us has federalism mm-hmm
the states can do things.
The federal government cannot,
but Canada really doesn't have
an effective federal system.
Uh, so there's really very little
tools for any faction to, to, to
put pressure on the government.
Uh, perhaps the, uh, sole example,
counterexample it's Quebec, they have
the only way to win power in Canada is,
uh, get some support from Quebec, right?
And so Quebec has a hammer that they can
use to ensure that, uh, their wishes,
their interests are heated to some degree.
Uh, but the, and the west has always been
treated as a colony of, of central Canada.
Mm-hmm it w um, that's really
not very difficult to argue.
No.
So how, how do people who, uh,
uh, Wanting to influence the
government achieve those ends.
There's there's very little.
So we get protests about gun laws.
We get protests about property rights.
We get protests about COVID and, and
lockdowns and things mm-hmm . But
with the strong homogeneous opinions
of the elite media universities, big
business politicians, uh, this is
sometimes called the Lorean elite.
Right?
Right.
Um, if, if they're against you, your
Sol, there's no way to influence this.
Well says, well,
wow.
So many, so many things going
through my ADHD head at the moment.
But one thing that I find really, really.
Uh, curious is the fixation of everybody
firearms owners, non firearms owners
alike on the firearm as a regulation
piece, as opposed to, uh, anything
else, whether that be, uh, if, if
violence is the issue, why are we
talking about firearms and not violence?
And how did firearms become such a,
a demonized entity all into itself?
And our, our largest massacre
in Canada happened with the
Jerry can of gas over it.
What was it?
The Bluebird club cafe, whatever,
somebody, couple disgruntled
drunk guys through a Jerry
can of gas down the stairs.
And anyone can go to a gas
station and get some petrol.
Anyone can with a driver's license can
rent a vehicle, but we're not hearing
the hu cry against, uh, vehicles or
gas attacks as we are with firearms.
And they don't populate
the news in the same way.
Well, um, I think part of it goes back
to the original concern about immigrants.
Mm-hmm , uh, the original notion of
gun control was that the established,
uh, Brits need to defend themselves.
Against the uppity new immigrant.
Mm.
But since the progressives captured
government in the sixties and seventies,
immigrants are no longer the, the devil
that they used to be in previous decades.
Mm.
Use useful devil.
Right, right.
Uh, now they're the thing that we
all need to protect and care about.
And if you don't honor the pities, you are
a racist, you are a, a misogynist, right.
You are the insults fly because
now immigrants are used to, as a
fulcrum, not a, an attack point.
Right.
And so all of us are now of concern,
but the progressives are afraid to
mention that many disproportionately
in the of criminal acts are
committed by new immigrants.
Sure.
And if you look at historically.
immigration is a giant pain.
If you immigrated as, as I have
from one country to another,
it is difficult to adapt.
Mm-hmm and from California to British
Columbia is not a large cultural
different, so to speak the same language.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So to have much of the same west coast
values, uh, when I lived in France,
uh, I was somewhat more, uh, uh, at
variance to the local culture, but
again, uh, If you take your family from
one country to another, or you come in
here as a single adult there's tension,
mm-hmm , there is difficult jobs,
professional, uh, uh, certificates,
uh, culture, all of these things cause
difficulties and that hurts families.
So it is no surprise that immigrants
of whatever ethnicity, the Irish, the
Italians, the Germans, the Jews, the,
the Asians, the Caribbean, whatever
you come from, immigration hurts.
And so obviously there is a higher
crime, uh, uh, rate among immigrants.
And it, you can show this in the states
where they keep these statistics.
Mm-hmm in Canada, they're
afraid to, so they don't.
Well, that's funny.
That's funny.
It is.
It is funny.
And if you look at it, uh, um, Japanese
Americans have a low CR lowest crime rate
of any ethnicity in the United States.
These are fourth or fifth generation
Japanese American mm-hmm their
parents or grandparents or great
grandparents have been born in the us.
And they have a lower crime
rate than, than, than whites or,
or, or, or Chinese or Filipinos
or, or any other kind of group.
And why I, I don't, I don't,
I can't answer that cultural.
I'm just gonna ask
it . Yeah, that is interesting.
And, you know, I guess back in the day,
if they're gonna say all those, those
are going to say, oh, those, those
dirty immigrants, we're afraid of them.
We're gonna have to take away
the handguns, but it's not.
Gonna win us hearts and minds.
If we say it's, it's the Irish,
we'll just say it's the firearm and
that's right.
They're, they're afraid to talk
about ethnicity because, uh, the
liberals have this, uh, scheme that
unites the highest levels of income.
The most the, the, the richest people, as
well as the dependent, uh, lowest classes.
And if they can.
Succeed in bringing in many groups from
wherever who are now dependent upon
the, the ruling party for, for jobs
and for access because these immigrants
came here thinking this was a better
place than wherever they came from.
Mm-hmm . So now I, I felt grateful
for being admitted to Canada, and
I felt that I should, I had some
duty to, to, uh, uh, pay the country
back for allowing me to come.
And I came from a
relatively privileged place.
So people from less privileges might
feel even more dutiful mm-hmm . So
this is a recipe you cannot upset.
You do not want to insult, uh,
your, your supporters so much better
to do something that criticizes.
The supporters of your opposition.
Mm-hmm so insult hunters, insult,
target shooters, insult the west.
Uh, there's no way the
liberals could lose from that
and by default, they end up painting
their opposition to take into a corner
where they have to take a stance,
so they can then further demonize.
And it's, it's funny how, how, how much
of a political tool that firearms and
firearms owners have become for both
the left and the right that's right.
I mean, if the right comes in, you're
not gonna see the, uh, uh, OIC or any
of these things overturned immediately.
I would guess it would be closer to the
next election, probably when it comes
through.
Well then one, one, um, my first
interest prior to getting interested
in guns was political marketing.
Okay.
My PhD, my studies were always about, uh,
political parties and how to win and what
strategies were useful and what weren't.
So when I first got into firearms,
uh, I was besides history.
I was interested in how is this
a, a, a useful object for the
political parties to play with?
Mm.
And one argument for bill C 68 brought
in by Allen rock and crate in the
mid nineties was that the progressive
conservatives with Kim Campbell had
introduced a firearm's legislation that
really appealed strongly to the kinds of
people, the liberals thought they needed.
Mm.
So.
So Kim Campbell's effort to, uh, pass,
uh, what, what was then called C 17 and
upgraded the, uh, FAC, uh, and actually
required for the first time a firearm
safety class and, and, uh, a picture
on the, on the FAC, uh, see, um, one of
the reasons for this was that they were
afraid of losing their major constituency.
Mm anti-gun.
Urbanites, uh, middle, middle class,
uh, white women and immigrants.
Mm-hmm
it's you, you know,
looking at how they use it.
I think nom Chomsky would have something
to say about how, how the media and
politicians will use that influence
in order to be able to win elections.
but, you know, even the most recent O I
like you're talking about the bill C 68.
And I remember when I was going through,
and that was when everyone was like
registration, Lisa confiscation.
And I'm like, you know, I think I see it.
I don't know.
Oh, it, obviously I see it now.
I was much younger then.
And I, some people in the
firearms community, weren't the
best advocates for themselves.
And they perhaps came across a little
bit crazy and although well, meaning
and well informed, uh, delivering
that message in today's day and age
is, is an art form, uh, that I think,
um, many people, um, both sides have
difficulty with, but I, I was looking
so that the Nova Scotia shooting, the
more recent one that spawned the OIC.
So that happened, uh, Saturday, April
18th, 2020 by Friday, May 1st, 2020.
The OIC was introduced the ordering
counsel prohibiting what they
now call, uh, assault weapons.
Right.
And that was 13 days later or 10
working days, or I guess technically
nine, cuz it was announced on the
10th day that they came up with.
This new law, essentially.
And I gotta wonder, can you write
one in nine days or was this sitting
in the hopper waiting for a, uh,
some sort of a tragedy to occur?
And if that's the case, why, why wait
if public safety's the issue, right.
Well, the bureaucracy, uh, is
really what runs the country.
Mm-hmm the administrative state.
This is true in both the us and Canada,
and probably true in most of, uh,
Westerners, civilized, uh, Europe or Asia.
Um, and the actual legislation
is written and floated around
inside Ottawa for decades.
Mm.
Uh, Ron, Bassford the, uh,
minister who brought in C 51 in the
seventies, uh, was what he wrote
was then introduced by Kim Campbell.
Mm.
And then Kim Campbell rejected bits
of what he had written that were
then adopted by Allen rock in C 68
mm-hmm . And, uh, even once it's written
that's legislation, mm-hmm , then we
have the administrative regulations.
That actually put the, the, the meat
on the bones and the auditor general
in 2003, I think criticized the
firearms bureaucracy for moving to
a zero tolerance, uh, regime so that
any infraction of the firearms rules
would be severely punished rather than
looking for, uh, dangerous people only.
Mm.
So the, the administrative state is what
is out of control in, in both countries.
Mm-hmm, , uh, the, uh, there is
no way to limit them in Canada.
There is only this us Supreme court, which
sometimes makes efforts to bring it in.
Uh, one of their recent decisions,
uh, rolled back, uh, um, a government,
uh, decision, uh, enforcing, uh,
green regulations on companies.
They had invented it without the, uh,
support of legislation in Congress.
Interesting.
And, uh, the, supposedly the
administration is supposed to administer
laws that were passed by Congress.
Mm-hmm, not just under a broad mandate.
So
the civil servants
,
uh, well, I mean, there's advantages and
disadvantages to the administrative of
state, but, uh, the, the goal is for them
to act under with, with restraint and
honor, mm-hmm, , that's hard, you know,
I, I can recall a couple
of instances here.
I remember, um, one, when we were
looking at the, um, uh, the abolition
of the long gun registry and there was.
The moratoriums put into place.
I remember some high ranking civil
servants within the firearms program here
saying, eh, we're choosing not to listen
to it for now, cuz we've got election
coming up and we'll see what happens.
Interesting.
And I also remember and have it on
video because, uh, I think it was
minister Blaney was our, uh, public
safety minister at the time where we
are right now, the podcast studio,
this used to be the head office.
I've now got a new head office, which
is a 10 minute walk from my house.
This is a 10 minute drive.
So trying to keep things kind of
central, but we're doing a firearms
inspection, couple firearms officers here.
And there is a question
about the deactivation versus
disabled versus active.
And I guess they have a fourth
category which would be destroyed and.
And there I would have two handguns that
are identical to each other, and they've
been milled up and drilled out and slide
rails been milled off and holes in the
chamber and firing pin holes drilled out.
And I mean to try and get these
things active at any point, you'd
be, you'd be hard pressed, but one of
them was done before a certain date.
And the firearms program on their website
says that's deemed as deactivated.
And one was done after a certain date.
And they said anything after this
date will be dis deemed as disabled.
So disabled carrying the same
connotation as a live firearm
needing to be registered.
So I had these two different firearms,
one beside each other, and we're trying
to figure this out, going back and forth.
We had the, um, uh, the registrar
actually come to the office at one time
afterwards to try and figure it out.
And, but these two people
doing the inspection and.
They, and I said, look it, I, I talked
to our, um, uh, MP, uh, who was she?
Uh, her name will come to me anyways.
Um, she was a lawyer and she was,
um, um, our member of parliament.
She says, you know, I brought this
up with minister Blaney it's being
discussed at the ministerial level.
You just let them know, just hold off.
We we'll help them out with this.
We'll we'll find something, but just,
just hold off on making a decision
right now cuz cuz we're looking at this.
Right.
So I, I mentioned that to them and
I said, just so you know, here's a
letter I got, they said they're gonna
assist with trying to find something.
Cuz we've been spending so
long trying to figure it out.
And this firearms officer looked at me
and says, Travis, in all due respect,
uh, her name was Carrie Lynn Finley
and he says, uh, and I'll quote him.
He says, fuck Carrie Lynn
Finley, fuck minister Blay.
They don't make the laws.
We do.
and I said, excuse me,
I don't understand this.
Can you explain knowing full
well we've got full video and
audio through the entire place,
which they should as well too.
And I mean, they really should
know at that point in dealing with
me, but, um, he goes on to say,
oh, it's called normative process.
And we create policies and those
policies become the normative
process of which is applied.
And then when they create
legislation or regulations, they
will lean on that normative process.
And, um, they will defer to us and
see how we generally handle things.
So we will make, we will tell you how
this is done and they will listen to us.
So I just sent, uh, minister Blaney over
a copy of that video and it was, well, not
even 24 hours later, I got his superior
saying he's been pulled from the file.
He'll never be a firearms officer
dealing with your company again.
And, uh, here's our, our apology.
He's in a phone call and I said, I
hope I'm getting this in writing.
Oh yeah, yeah, no written coming as well.
So I got it in writing too, but uh, oh.
Um, but that mindset I've seen
prevalent within certain areas of
the civil service because governments
come and go, but the civil.
Servants will continue forward.
Well, I, I can tell you
a similar horror tale.
Um, when I was on the firearms
advisory committee to the public safety
minister, um, Leading up to the Harper
government's, uh, uh, cancellation
of, of, of the long gun registry.
We invited the head of the
firearm center to come by and
tell us what the problems were.
And, and he came and said there
was no way to get rid of it.
It was impossible that
there were too many copies.
Mm, nobody kept track of where they went,
cuz people would ask and they'd send them
on and mm-hmm and so there'd be all over.
Plus it was an integral part of
the entire computer system mm.
That it would take years and
years to erase it and change it.
And he had, I, it's not clear those
two arguments are logically consistent.
No, , they're not, but
he made both of them.
And so.
Six months later, uh, the, the law
was passed and the handgun registry
was in principle, uh, disappeared.
And the same fellow came to the same
committee saying he had now erased
the whole thing but didn't exist.
And thank you very much
for the long gun registry.
Yeah.
And, and of course with, uh, the high
river thing, uh, in Alberta where
the RMP has been accused and there's,
there's some empirical support for using
a non-existent long gun registry to
go into homes and confiscate firearms
that they, uh, shouldn't know if there
wasn't a long gone registering it.
I think that's just the, kind
of the PC way of saying yeah.
There's some support for it.
I think based on both of our connections,
we very well know that there is a lot
of copies of that and it was floating
around, but yes, that's, um, um, And then
didn't something happen in Quebec there
where, uh, they were able to now retain
that so-called, uh, destroyed registry
wasn't didn't they have a, uh, well,
I, I'm never really quite sure
of, of how this worked, but
there was a sponsored case.
Uh, that, uh, allowed the
government to keep a copy.
Uh, I suppose the isolated and right,
and reserved just for this person.
Plus of course, Quebec did not
destroy its provincial registry.
And so there's copy that
is linked to that as well.
So at the very least there's
these, uh, uh, uh, cloistered,
if you wish copies that.
Uh, uh, but, but essentially
these are outdated.
And now with the new C 71 rules
about getting a transfer number
and leaving the firearms and owners
information, we now have a downloaded,
uh, uh, long gun registry in the
hands of anybody at a gun show.
Or anybody transfers
their rifle, large shotgun
gun, right, right.
Yeah.
It's uh, just a registry by a
different name, which carries, uh,
especially for the businesses, even
further penalties for businesses
under the, uh, business regulations.
And I even have to wonder if that exceeds
the, uh, Uh, I haven't looked at it,
but privacy laws for retaining data and
information for certain periods of time.
Right.
I mean, there, there's so many
conflicting things inside here and to
what end, I mean, I, I get, I get the
concept that people can say, well,
okay, so you register your car, so
you should register your firearm.
Well, you don't really register your car.
Right.
I'm registered as a driver and I can
drive my own vehicle if my own back
40 is I don't need a driver's license.
Right.
Well, if, if guns were treated
as cars, we'd have a heck of
a lot more freedom with our
guns sure.
Is, you know, would wouldn't we, um,
I, but I get how some people can try
and sell the idea of having a registry
so they know where they all are.
Right.
And so if something
goes wrong, Hey, we can.
But the reality, even the most, even
the most loyal following person to
that, that dogma would realize that.
It, it really falls apart.
The second somebody's doing something
nefarious with a firearm, are
you gonna say, huh, don't worry.
I check the, I check the registry.
They only have one and we got it.
So we don't have to worry anymore.
Or you go into a place and you say,
you know, these are some bad dudes
here, but nobody worry, no guns here.
We've checked the registry.
right.
Uh, wow.
I remind you that, uh, there's a lot
of data that suggests something like
half of all the people who own guns
in the nineties, Never got around
to registering or getting a license.
Yes.
So, uh, a recent Angus Reed poll, uh,
and if you look at their demographics
at the bottom of their, their website,
uh, you can see that the number of
firearms owners is roughly twice the
number of people with, uh, Baals mm-hmm
So, and this is a public opinion poll.
These people are admitting
to, uh, unknown person on the
telephone that they have a firearm.
You'd be
surprised at how many times
I'm at political functions.
Politic is, oh, Hey Travis.
I, I know what you do.
I've learned what you do
through talking to you now.
And they'll say, oh, I
probably should get my license.
Cause I, you know, I've got this
firearm under my bed for X amount of
time or a number of people that just
readily in, in positions of authority
or power and they will view it.
Rightly.
So is something that's rather innocuous.
Okay.
So I got a gun under my bed who cares?
It's not hurting anybody.
I'm not doing anything
nefarious with this.
I'll get myself licensed.
And what's the worst
that could happen to me.
Well, firearms owners know based on the
training and being in it, what's the
worst that can ha can happen to you.
Well, if you don't even have your license
and you're driving and you get pulled
over, you get a ticket, but you know what?
They'll rip that ticket up.
If you come within a couple days and show
'em your license and you get a failure
to produce and it's all gone, we're good.
Your firearms license.
You'd be looking at jail time.
I mean, it's you, it's pretty
serious.
Well, there it is not just guns,
but in many aspects of life, most
people just don't realize how much,
uh, they're putting themselves at
risk by giving away information
about themselves on the internet.
Mm-hmm by buying things or selling
things, uh, of all sorts mm-hmm uh,
and people either are naive or
trusting or ignorant or all three.
Uh and, and just don't think
that they're doing anything wrong.
I've I've heard people say,
well, I've I have nothing.
I've done nothing wrong.
So I should have no fear for a police
to come in my house and search it
for drugs or search it for guns.
Cuz I know there's none there.
Sure.
Uh, they don't understand
that police have, uh, various.
Uh, goals in their own life
that may very well think of you
as expendable and plant drugs.
Uh,
I, how would never happen, Gary?
Plant drugs?
Are you kidding me?
Wow.
Um, in, in my teenage years, I
remember, uh, being at this party,
uh, where there was beer available
and I was, uh, 18 and beer.
The, the legal age was 21 and I was
pulled out of the party, stuck in the
back of a police car and then pulled out.
And the, and the police said they
found, uh, a weapon in the backseat
and he was gonna charge me for it.
and I said, I'm an 18 year old drunk.
I'm not . And, and I just laughed at him.
Yeah.
But I mean, I don't know.
I mean, again, I was naive, uh, sure.
Uh, I, I knew it wasn't mine and
therefore it was not my problem.
Right.
But it really was my problem.
Yeah.
If he had wanted to, I could
have been through courts and,
and through all sorts of trouble.
Uh, so he, he dropped it that disappeared.
There was no problem, but.
There's no reason for
that to happen every time.
No.
And you know, uh, back behind me
here, cameras, don't pick it up, but
there's a, uh, a nice little apology
letter on the wall from the RCMP.
I think you may have read
that one at one time.
I think it was in the newspapers,
but I don't May 16th, 2008.
You think the prior to then I always,
I was a golden child with the, um,
with the, uh, firearms program and
we're dealing with, uh, several
Vancouver police, new west Abbotsford.
Um, I'm transit, please.
I was working with them on
a day to day basis, old CFO.
I was at his retirement party working with
the firearms program on a regular basis.
And you know, that mentality,
I've done nothing wrong.
Right?
What do I gotta worry about?
Well, I had done nothing wrong.
I'm more than happy to help them out,
but I didn't stop them from putting my
life through turmoil for eight years.
I don't think I've ever actually
talked about this on the, uh, on the
podcast, but it's, uh, and I won't go
into the great detail of it, but from
a cautionary tale, for those who would
say, if you've not done nothing wrong,
what do you have to be concerned about?
Well, eight years is a long time of your
life and a lot of money to be spending
on multiple different lawyers who never
got the chance to see a day in court.
Um, To really prove their medal.
Because the second we finally got
down to the courtroom, the, um, uh,
department of justice says, okay, you
went, you get everything you want.
And he says, I wanna
shake your hand, Travis.
right.
I'm like, no, I'm not shaking your hand.
He's my life miserable for eight years.
He's like, I've never met somebody
with your brinkmanship, a term,
which I hadn't heard before then.
But, uh, I said, uh, you gotta
realize there was no brink for me.
This isn't a game, right.
I you'd already pushed me over the edge.
I would sell everything.
I owned.
I'd live in a cardboard box.
My wife and kids might dislike me for it.
But before admitting to
something I didn't do.
And in the end, the, um, firearms
officer responsible for the business
turns out he had not one, not two but
three competing business interested.
Two of which were incorporated
the, uh, Police officer the
so-called lead investigator.
He ends up getting criminally
charged and convicted.
Although some of the, um, points
were dropped off, but he was in
possession of prohibited, firearms,
uh, drugs that were just kind of
disappearing from the property office.
And like all of these people,
if they're interested, they
could read the news articles.
I don't need to go down that sort
of, uh, negative wormhole, but there
is a, um, there is a point to all
of that, which is those who think
it could never happen to them.
Those who say I've got
nothing to worry about.
Right?
I've done nothing wrong.
This just affects other people.
That's all well and good until it affects.
And guaranteed the further down
the line we go, it's starting
to affect more and more people.
Maybe not as dramatically as what
had happened to me at the time, but
it happens well.
It's, it's easy.
Um, um, I get phone calls from
people, um, who, uh, have run
afoul of some firearms law.
And my first response is I'm
a professor, not a lawyer.
There's, there's no way I, I
could be of helped you no matter
what, what your situation is.
Right.
But, uh, they call and
they they're desperate.
And they have talked
themselves into a problem.
Mm.
I had one fellow call me and say
that his truck was stolen and
he was getting ready for a hunt.
And so he'd got the truck all stashed
with food and clothing and, and everything
and left his gun in a truck to, uh, uh,
become acclimatized with the temperature.
And it was stolen with,
with the gun in it.
Mm.
So he calls the police and tells them.
The truck and gun were stolen.
So now he's charged for unsafe storage
and convicted by his own words.
Mm-hmm and he calls me for help.
And I say, I, I can't help you.
Your case is, is, is decided because
you told him what you did and
what you did was wrong by the law.
And that's
it, you know, in, it was interesting
because in my situation, I get a phone
call from the, um, from my receptionist
and I'm like, oh, it's kind of odd.
She's phoning me in the morning.
And I'm like, she sounds
a little bit, uh, uh, off.
And I said, it's everything okay.
She's like, oh, I'm okay.
But you should probably get here.
The police are here.
And, um, I said, oh, okay.
Um, you know, I'm, I'm actually on my way.
Anyways, I'm in my vehicle, I'm
driving over, had a trailer in tow.
And I said, what do they want?
Right.
Because I was working with
Vancouver for police at the time.
And like I said, new S
and Abby and a few others.
And I figured it was one of the
things we're working on with them.
And they said, well,
they have a warrant here.
And, um, I said, oh, we'll take
a look at the warrant, get a copy
and, and show 'em what they need.
Right.
I figured maybe one of the firearms
that we had was something of, of, of
interest and says, no, no, no, you should.
Uh, they said, they, they
wanna wait until you get here.
So I, I get, I drive in, I think it was
driving the next stare at the time with
just towing a big trailer behind it.
And.
And they had the block corded off.
They had the municipally integrated
E R T here I drive around back and
there's a team staged in the back and I
snuck up on them, so to speak and wow.
And this said, uh,
first guy, oh, Hey Trav.
Oh, uh, yeah.
Can you just park over here?
I'm really, really, sorry.
We don't want to be here.
This isn't.
I forget what he said was Abbotsford.
Cuz it's municipally integrated
this isn't Abbotsford.
It's got nothing to do with us.
Right.
And okay.
I don't know who he was.
I'll mask up.
Right.
But he seemed to know me.
Next person says, oh,
I, I know your father.
He trained me back in the academy
and, and uh, I just want you to
know this isn't new west right.
And each person, anyways, I get
inside, uh, the building and right
off the bat, this one guy's like,
okay, this is illegal over here.
And I started explaining to
him why it's not illegal.
Right.
And okay, this over here is illegal.
And I explained to him why it's
not illegal, but the third one.
. I remember this YouTube video of
a lawyer in the states and it's
called don't talk to the police.
Right?
And it's one of these things that, um,
everybody, everybody should read, read,
everybody should watch it because this
lawyer makes a very, very good point.
And he gives equal time to the
police afterwards to talk and rebut,
to refute anything that he says.
And the police say, I'm not,
I can't refute anything.
Seriously.
Don't talk to the police.
There's plenty of time afterwards,
when you can talk to them to
explain, even if you know, you've
done absolutely everything right.
Which I knew and which many others
know, the only thing that you can do
is hurt yourself by opening your mouth.
You can explain it all after exactly.
The one thing though, that I would
change from that whole, uh, video,
cuz what I got from that was okay.
I could see there's an agenda here.
I see.
There's a mission that they're on.
I'll shut up.
Right?
I get pulled into the,
um, uh, pre-trial center.
I'm phoning up friends.
I'm like, do you guys know any lawyers?
They're like, well, corporate lawyers.
Sure.
Like why would, why would I know
anybody who knows lawyers, right?
Or, yeah, that's the issue.
Right.
And so, uh, anyways, we get in there.
And, uh, I end up spending three days
in a, in a cell in my, um, father's in
another cell, my mother's in another cell.
My two brothers are another cells and
they hold us while going through and
seizing everything, executing warrants.
And, uh, so I'm like, okay,
don't talk to the police.
And later on a bright individual,
a friend of mine said when he is
reviewing things, he says, you know,
Travis, he did a very good job of just
saying nothing when you're in there.
But perhaps you could have built
a very strong case by asking some
questions when you're in there as well.
Cuz all of a sudden that talking
is now on the other side.
Yeah.
And whoever it is that's doing the
interviewing is gonna be essentially
etching their words in stone, which
can later be reviewed that's right.
So asking questions of them, I
think would be the only thing
that would add to all of that.
Um, so yeah, that was, that was a, uh,
An interesting experience, but it's
one that, uh, obviously ended up as
it ought to with the police officer
separately, getting charged for his,
uh, malfeasance and misgivings and
apology being issued and an undisclosed
cash settlement and all the rest.
But, um, it's uh, yeah,
don't talk to the police.
Good advice.
Well, that's, that's a horrible story
and you were just really, um, abused
is the only word I can think of that
really was, uh, abusive process.
And you were just victimized.
That's horrible.
I remember, uh, crown council says
Trav, you know, I think you're right.
Like this is original crown, right?
I.
I've been looking at, I bar I
barely looked at the file, but yeah.
Looks like you haven't done anything, but
you know, just, just help us out here.
Right.
Just maybe take a plea deal and
we'll give you everything back.
Right.
And how about, um, just sign this
letter saying you're you guys are sorry
and you, you can hold on everything.
We get it all back.
We're all back to normal.
Right?
I said, no.
I said, there's no way I'm
admitting to wrongdoing.
Like, if I'd done something wrong, I'd
say, Hey, that sounds like a sweet deal.
Great.
let's take it.
And he says, you know, I've done
an assessment of your house.
I've done an assessment of your office.
I've done an assessment
of your family's house.
Like here's how much money we
think you have to fight it.
And here's how long that
we can drag this thing out.
You said this to me.
Wow.
It'll be so much cheaper.
If you just a typical council
will cost about this much.
So we've calculated.
It'll cost about this much to defend it.
This is easy.
You get what you want in the end.
You get everything else.
Everyone's happy.
anyways, that same crown
council afterwards.
I really admire you, Travis.
I admire your level of, of stick to
it Inness, and I'm gonna recommend
you as, um, as a subject matter expert
on these issues to others Essent.
Please don't come after me.
right.
I that's horrible.
Most, most of the people who call
me, uh, to complain have, are
just, uh, ignorant of the law.
Mm.
And ignorant of how to,
uh, deal with any mistakes.
Uh, so it is you're, you're the,
uh, so it is your, your situation.
There was an actual malevolent person
mm-hmm in, on the police side.
Uh, the law is very complicated and
it's not surprising that that both
the police and the suspect or any
general firearms owner would not know.
Everything mm-hmm so it, it
is quite easy to make mistakes.
I agree at, at one point I wanted
to interview police because my,
one of my skills from my PhD
program was survey research.
Mm.
So I thought one way to start doing
this would be to survey various,
uh, groups, uh, Canadians, British
Colombians, uh, police and see what
opinions could come out of that.
And, and, but I was blocked by the RCMP
and they, and as blocked by the Vancouver
police, uh, for different reasons, the
office and the officer in charge of
the Vancouver police said you wanted
to interview the police on gun laws.
they don't know enough
for you to interview.
Right.
I mean, um, I think that's right.
I mean, that's not an
insult it's no, it's not
it's so guns are a small, small
portion of what they have to deal with.
There's so much they have
to know, and I, I should.
I should be clear in case my
previous words are coming
across as sort of anti-police.
I couldn't be more
pro-police than anybody else.
There are some, there's gonna be those
small percentage of, of really bad
apples I ran into 'em there's gonna be
those small percentage of really good.
Yeah.
Uh, people out there, the majority are
just your rank and file they'll plug in.
They'll do their day
they're they're humans.
We're all the same we're animals.
There's the reasons there's game trails.
They like to go follow the
same path of least resistance.
Right?
Of course . And now with,
uh, multicultural, uh, hiring
mm-hmm we now have multiple
cultures in the police department.
No surprise, right?
No insult.
Right.
But that, but not many of them come from.
Outdoors, uh, culture
such as we have in Canada.
And so many of the urban people of
whatever ethnicity, uh, have, have
cultures that leave them without
any knowledge about gun owners.
So when they run across somebody
with guns, they think that they
have to have a SWAT team, right.
Or, or they think that if the gun
is registered, it must be someplace
where they were told it is.
And it may not be, uh, there there's
all sorts of, of, of sure of levels
here that could make them quite
frightened of some good old boy duck
hunter, who, who really is no problem.
And maybe a little bit deaf when
they tell him to put that gun down.
That's right.
maybe the, guy's just an a-hole, but
it doesn't mean he's a threat, right?
it's a, so I mean, it, it is
easy that accidents happen and
people don't know everything.
so, you know, back to the paper that
you're talking about of the, uh, sort of
the differences between Canada and the
us and their, the right to bear arms.
And I remember that was one of the
questions that was, um, asking me before
he is like, do you think Canadians
have a right to bear arms Travis?
And, and I said, you know, it's
been explained to me that in Canada,
we have the, um, it's a privilege
and which is granted to us, but
not necessarily a right, which is
how it's established under a law.
Uh, and it's funny how, you know, some
people say, you know, the Canadian charter
of rights and freedoms, I've heard one
person say, that's, that's the worst
thing that's ever came out is having this
charter of rights and freedoms, because
it now says that the government has
the authority to tell you what's right.
And we can enshrine this.
And with, unless we tell you it's in
here, then I guess it's wrong, right?
So,
wow.
It's because in Canada rights are granted
to you by the government effectively.
Mm.
If the government says you don't
have a right, it there's clearly,
uh, an argument that would, that
say that you do not have that.
Right.
Mm-hmm uh, another argument would be
traditional rights that were, that were
granted by the king, in the English bill
of rights that Blackstone and Sur John A.
McDonald thought that Canadians
and inherited, uh, No longer exists
because they're no longer exercised.
If you have a right, but refuse over
generations to not exercise it, it starts
to look more and more extinguished.
Ah, yes.
Uh, although, and, and if the courts
are appointed by the prime minister
and the courts are the ultimate
arbiter on what is or is not all
right, it's not clear that the courts
are separate from the prime minister.
No.
Despite all the appointed by
patronage committees that decide who
will be nominated, that the prime
minister then chooses from mm-hmm
So essentially it's centralized
government, including executive
legislative, judicial it's
all the prime minister.
Mm-hmm . and, and whatever
rights, one parliament, uh, uh,
invents, the next one can erase.
Yeah.
I guess it's kind of difficult
when the previous conservative
government says they want to.
Diminish the civil service.
And, uh, I sort of start cutting
the government expenditures.
You're kind of slitting their own
throat, so to speak because the,
uh, uh, any government that would
propagate and build that larger will
inherently have a, uh, a better base
to, uh, win future elections with.
And, well, I mean, it's not just guns.
The current progressive
dogmas do not want to honor.
Traditional Canadian values.
Uh, the army, the military has been
gradually shrunk in size and importance.
Uh, there's even a government publication.
Now that has the previous national
flag, the red Enson as a mark of racism.
Mm-hmm . So if you have a red ENT or fly
red, Ensen you are now suspect of racism.
Uh, this not, it may
be a minor functional.
Department mistake, or it might
be something indicative, but the
liberals have, have invaded for a
long time against traditional Canadian
culture, uh, why this has to be erased
or why this is, uh, a bad thing.
Uh, again, the immigrants are used as a
fulcrum to defend hate is to be a racist.
And so that means they can argue
that, uh, in any, uh, claim
that would make a reference to
principles that could discriminate,
uh, is now racist or hateful.
And that, that is really a recipe
for destroying, uh, uh, a, a
happy multicultural country.
I totally agree.
You know, when, when people stop using
those rights and they start to wither.
, uh, they get easier and easier to take.
And it's, it's difficult.
I think for people to, uh, uh, see what a
right is, as opposed to, uh, like I said,
for example, freedom of speech, you can
say whatever you want provided, you're
not yelling fire in a movie theater.
Right.
And, um, to protect that freedom of
speech, you also have to be ready
to be offended or have other people
use that freedom in a way that
you don't necessarily agree with.
And I think that is sort of where the
fundamental disconnect that I've been
seeing as of years, is that people
will say, well, here's the freedom, but
here's what the freedom should look like.
And they, they try and
define that whole thing.
Um, just like with the.
Uh, when you're talking about the
difference between the us and the
Canadian and right to bear arms,
they say, well, you know, you got
a freedom of protection, but we're
gonna define that a little further.
Now, your protection's gonna
come from the government.
You call the police, right?
We carry guns.
The police can carry guns.
They can have it.
They'll come and they'll protect you.
Right?
And any gun owner will say,
well, in seconds, count, the
police are only minutes away,
which, which is totally true.
The police can't be there
in your back pocket.
Um,
it's, it's not the job of
the police to protect you.
It really isn't.
The, the police, uh, want to create
a culture of safety and by the, by
their existence, but after the crime
is committed, whatever possession, uh,
property crime, uh, uh, violent crime,
the police job is to collect evidence,
provide, uh, the basis for charges.
That's not gonna protect you.
right.
not
at all.
that?
Well, the, the free speech
argument is an interesting one.
We have people ethnicities groups
in Canada who come from places where
people work really hard to hurt them.
Mm.
Uh, Chinese and Malaysia Jews in Germany,
uh, various people across the world.
Those are just two examples.
Mm.
And so one could legitimately believe
that if there were hateful, things said
about those guys, then one might actually
expect some of those hateful comments
to result in violence or, or insults,
or, or, or at least life limitations.
Sure.
Such as can't get jobs or, or can't
get, uh, access to places and things.
Mm-hmm uh, so.
Clearly I can see an argument
why you don't want too much
hateful, ethnic, ethnic remarks.
Uh, but on the other hand, if we have
a robust democracy, a robust country
where people have opinions and argue
about them, uh, we certainly should
have the right to pick friends.
Mm-hmm and if I want to, or don't want
to be with somebody, uh that's my right.
Yeah.
Um, and that, that is a
natural, if you wish, right.
That people wanna be with.
Uh, somebody they want to
be with for whatever reason.
So
Muhammad Ali said, you know, birds
of a feather flock together, right?
and,
and often those are similarity.
It's not true that the whole world
of the seventh grade dance, where
the boys are on the one side and the
girls on the other and every little
ethnicity is grouped by themselves.
Right.
Um, many of us live in a heterogeneous
world and mm-hmm are perfectly
happy to, to, to do so, but
one could be sensitive to this.
So I could, I I've just argued against
total freedom of speech, but on the
other hand, Uh, these things get
weaponized mm-hmm these certainly
legitimate principles get pushed too far.
So now, any comment that the government
thinks is, is, uh, hatred, uh, or
angry can now be, uh, uh, ruled
out and therefore criticism of the
government criticism of government
policy, which under no way should be,
uh, uh, controlled by the government.
Mm-hmm who who's ever in power,
which is scary.
Very scary.
This is scary if they're
the ones deeming what's.
Defining what hate speech
is.
And, and Canada really has
no bill of rights with teeth.
Mm-hmm really has no rights with teeth.
There's no way that, uh, a, a
Supreme court will defend the
rights that we're talking about
as the us Supreme court does.
Mm-hmm whether you're in favor
of conservative interpretations
or progressive interpretations,
there's, there's just no way that
the basic rights are protected.
Canada put Ukrainian Canadians
into concentration camps,
Canada put Italian and German
Canadians and concentration camps.
Mm-hmm Canada put Japanese.
And so there's, there's clearly no
reason to think the government couldn't
act against our best interest mm-hmm
well, where do you think
things are gonna be going with?
Like, so right now, I think the,
since people have an attention
span, that's about TikTok length.
Um, everyone's thinking about
this handgun freeze, right?
This new, recent handgun
freeze that's happening.
Have you done much, uh,
looking into, into that
one I've I've looked at it, uh, but
I don't know what to do at this point
because, uh, there, they haven't,
the government has not brought
in their order and council, the
legislation is still in obeyance.
There may well be, uh, in a week
or two, uh, the order and council
that makes the freeze effective.
But right now it's just
hanging over everybody.
Uh, just like the 20, 20 confiscation,
uh, the so-called buyback, uh, it's
not clear what they're gonna do.
They keep saying different
things and, uh, it's all hanging.
Uh, and, and again, The liberals
want public, uh, announcements.
They want to make, uh, political
points by announcing these things.
Uh, it's not clear.
They will actually do anything.
Mm-hmm . Although with firearms, their
success rate of doing is, is pretty good.
Mm-hmm uh, so I, I wouldn't discount
that they will confiscate force a New
Zealand style confiscation on people.
Uh, I've heard that the, the last
rumor I've heard is that you'll
be asked, you'll be required.
To mail in whatever firearm you think is
prohibited mm-hmm . And, uh, they will
decide whether it's prohibited or not.
Once they have it once they have it.
So the costs go back to you.
Mm-hmm not them setting up, uh, as
they did in New Zealand, drop off spots
with, uh, assessors and police and
security, but you Canada's obviously
much bigger than New Zealand mm-hmm so
that's prohibitive, but just mail it in.
And so Canada post will have
hundreds of thousands of guns flow
flowing through their post offices,
carefully marked as to what it is.
You know,
I, I see a business opportunity for a,
uh, any entrepreneurial minded people.
So Silvercore is a fire firearms
business, and we've got plenty
of, um, uh, business conditions
that allow for you name it.
Um, once a prohibited firearm goes into
a business inventory, businesses are
permitted to buy, sell trade between other
businesses and museums, cuz museums are
class in the sort, sort of same area.
I wonder if a business opportu opportunity
would be for gun stores in general to buy
these firearms from people, um, under the.
Rather than surrendering them to the,
uh, to the government for destruction,
the businesses can then use 'em for any
legitimate business purpose as prescribed.
Maybe they want to use 'em for
film shoots or, or whatever.
Right.
And, uh, but once it's done, maybe
there can be contingent on there
that the individual who sold the
firearm has the first rate of refusal
to purchase that firearm back.
Oh well, but, but these are rules
and laws and regulations that could
be rewritten to, for a different set
mm-hmm uh, so what you suggest may be
current, but the next set could be, would
be a gamble basically
it's rolling the dice,
although it would, it
would be more reasonable.
For the buyback to go through businesses
rather than, uh, people just to go to
the, uh, what staples and buy a box.
Great.
And ship it through, uh,
Canada post or FedEx.
Sure.
Uh, because that would be much
more vulnerable to theft totally.
Or, or corruption than, than
businesses, which are, uh, easily
required to keep track of it.
Of course.
Full record keeping.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, FedEx would be required
to keep track too, but, uh, it
would be, uh, pretty complicated
and easy to make mistakes.
Look at how much money on the
COVID support has disappeared.
And nobody even knows where it went.
I
know, I know
so it it's and, and the same with the
freeze, uh, what, what are we gonna do?
We gonna continue grandfathering.
Firearms.
And so these horribly dangerous,
incredibly, uh, destructive
public safety things you can keep
'
em.
Right.
Well, just like the prohibition of
these assault weapons, where are they?
Well, in the exact same place they
were before, has anything changed?
Nope, right.
Well, but they got a couple of
public relations broadcasts and, uh,
maybe the people who, uh, support
this, uh, uh, are now satisfied.
Uh it's again, going back to political
marketing, it is interesting that
each gun law is introduced as if
there were no gun laws before.
I
know, I know
that's.
I mean, anybody who has a gun
is knows that is never have been
true since 1892, but, uh, uh,
that's not how it's announced.
Oh,
man.
Yeah, the, um, gun stores buy 'em back.
$1 people can pay a storage
fee just so they have it.
And then, uh, maybe change a government.
I I'll, I'll put that out as, uh, as an
open, an open idea for entrepreneurial
minded people to, to work with.
I
I'm.
I really find this whole thing,
disturbing that, uh, in the same, uh,
month, the us Supreme court decides that
it or ordinary law abiding Americans
have a natural God given right to
get a permit or to carry a handgun.
Defense of their person.
Yes.
Uh, whether this is because of the, the
revolutionary bill of rights, whether
it's due to federalism that each state
has an independent criminal code,
whether it's due to a, a court system or
whether it's due to the high crime rates.
Mm uh, American citizens, ordinary law,
abiding American citizens want a gun
for protection because there is a huge
crime rate mm-hmm uh, and Canada does
not have as, as bad our crime rate.
So perhaps our crime rate must get much
worse before we insist on our rights.
Yeah.
Well, I think we were a
little late at that point.
I, I
am not gonna argue for
the crime raising Christ.
No but
well, and I saw that come through
and I think there was five
or seven, um, standing court.
Cases that have now been, uh, told
to review themselves, given this new
Supreme court ruling in the states.
And you're probably gonna find it being a
massive win for, uh, gun rights advocates,
mind you at the same time, there's more,
I think New York just brought out some,
some, uh, mandatory training and going
to the range and they're proposing that
in order to get your, uh, your firearm.
It, it seems like such a funny
treadmill of, uh, of logic, which
seems so off the mark for me, like
I, I asked the firearms program,
I said, you know, what's going on?
You you've announced a freeze.
We've got people saying, why should I
bother getting my, um, restricted license?
Um, if we can't get a handgun and they
said, oh no, no, keep offering the course.
We're gonna keep offering it.
Cuz even afterwards competitive
shooters and those work in an armor
car industry or, or other areas,
well we'll need to have this.
Okay.
So people are arguing the, um,
whether they should be able to
have the right to keep firearms.
People are arguing whether they
should be limit that, right?
Whether by magazine capacity or barrel
length, or get rid of guns together.
But what they're really trying
to look at has got nothing to
do with firearms to begin with.
Really what they're concerned about is
people doing stupid things with firearms.
They're looking at stupid people, people
who are gonna be doing criminal things
and nefarious things, whether that be
with a U-Haul van, whether that be with
a Jerry can like you look in the UK
and they've got a prohibition on many
types of firearms, yet they still find
their way into the island of the UK.
And they can't keep 'em out of there.
How is Canada supposed to be
able to do that right next to the
largest arms manufacturer in the
world and the UK's knife violence.
So to speak, like it
doesn't change the violence.
It just changes the implement.
instruction.
Um, I don't really believe that
the gun laws are introduced.
In order to reduce crime.
I agree.
It is not, uh, possible that the,
uh, politicians who pass these
laws are that ignorant or stupid.
I agree, uh, in England, uh, the cabinet,
uh, discussions of previous gun laws
have become public after 50 years.
And they disclosed that the 1920s,
1930s British gun laws were really
because the government was afraid
of anarchy, anarchists, communists,
revolution, unions, uh, protesting,
bringing down the government mm-hmm
and they didn't wanna admit that.
So they were, uh, saying it was
violent crime mm-hmm uh, the bill.
C 51 in 77 that brought in the firearms
acquisition certificate was really a log
rolling exercise to allow the capital
punishment to finally be, uh, ruled out.
Mm.
And it hadn't been administered in several
years because the, uh, culture of, of
in government and police and prison
society was against capital punishment.
So this was a way to finally, uh,
uh, uh, rule out capital punishment.
Uh, I really think that the government is,
is concerned, not about criminal violence,
but about control of the public and
control of, of the population in cities.
Primarily mm-hmm . You notice that C
68, when they brought it in registration
and licensing, the, uh, treaty eight
nations were quite vigorous in defending
their, their, their, their native rights.
Sure.
And the compromise was that chiefs, uh,
elected or appointed hereditary right.
Could decide, uh, to issue permits.
Right.
And you also will notice that there's
very little information about what
is the number of, uh, what is the
percentage of Aboriginal people with
firearms license or registered firearms?
Mm-hmm so we really have a large, uh,
A large number of people here mm-hmm
that, that we have to be concerned about.
So that government really is using this as
a way to increase police power, increase
supervision of all people mm-hmm , uh,
immigrants, locals, uh, Aboriginal
has little to do with violent crime.
Yeah, it's sad, but it's true.
And I think it's really
self evident to anyone.
Who's been a student of
history like yourself,
and it's it's you notice the emphasis on,
on advertising and political announcements
and the long timeline between actually,
if making things effective mm-hmm this
is because the politics works for them.
They think they, they can solidify the
suburban ignorant people, uh, and the
immigrants to build up enough voting
blocks so they can maintain power
mm-hmm . So it's really about political
power mm-hmm and long term disarmament.
Mm-hmm . Uh, the recent Angus re polls
that I mentioned earlier about saying
how, what, what the proportion of,
of people who own Gunsler also showed
that the more anybody knew about gun
laws, the less they supported gun laws.
funny how that works.
Only the people that admitted they
knew nothing or barely anything
were the ones who were the strongest
supporters of, of more gun laws.
So really this is support by the ignorant
well, doesn't that kind of bring us
back to, let's say the advisory panel.
So we've got a firearms advisory
panel under the previous government.
It had people who were students of
history who knew about firearms laws.
Who've actually touched a
firearm and knew how they worked.
Right.
And.
why not have a few people like yourself
on that council who can provide
insight and information that might
be a contrary viewpoint, but a valid
viewpoint that should be considered.
I, I don't know what the current makeup
is of that advisory panel, but, um, I
don't think you're on the current one.
Are you?
Well, no, there's no hunter groups.
There's no, uh, uh, gun rights groups.
The SSA is not there.
CCFR is not there.
Even the pro gun control groups, uh, have
withdrawn because the government would,
they claim what wasn't listening to them.
Mm.
So the advisory committee is really most
like most of the committees there to back
up what the government wants and right.
If you criticize the
government, you're off, they.
They'll take your advice.
Yeah, exactly.
I hear ya.
I hear ya.
Um, I'm involved with an, an advisory
group here locally and at the local
level, it's smaller much better, much
better than at the, uh, and we got
some, uh, some good people running
it that will listen to all sides.
And who will objectively look at
the, uh, what the concerns are?
I, I remember, uh, BA not to bring it
up again, but after the May 16th, 2008,
uh, debacle there for the RCMP, um,
they originally, they contacted the
corporation at Delta and they said,
um, we want know where all the firearms
businesses are and the corporation of
Delta, which is now the city of Delta
says we don't know because we cl classify
firearms businesses under, uh, what is it?
Sporting goods.
I think it was sporting goods.
And if you're doing gunsmithing,
you're repair of like, uh,
technical, uh, instruments.
So it could be watches.
It could be.
so shortly thereafter, all it's all
over the newspapers, front page of
the sun, front, front page of the
province, all the no local papers
there's file photos in there that had
nothing to do with myself or Silvercore
that showed just terrible things.
And so the, uh, local government says,
well, geez, this is, this is pretty bad.
We better take a look at maybe limiting,
um, firearms businesses within our, within
our city, within the corporation of Delta.
So they put a proposal forward and
they said, they're gonna grandfather
the existing ones, but no new
firearms businesses allowed in.
And so I, okay.
I'll, I'll go to this meeting and, um,
I'll, uh, voice my two bits and I dressed
up in a suit looking presentable and I had
all of my facts and all my figures and all
my information and I'm going through it.
And I think, uh, who was it?
Barry.
I think it was, uh, might, might,
might have been somebody different.
He works for the, uh,
um, for the city there.
He says, Travis, Travis, hold on.
I'm gonna stop you.
You realize we're only talking about
this because of, of you, of what
happened to you like, oh, thanks.
Right.
You realize I've done nothing wrong.
Like, like what the hell's going on here.
and he says, um, but I
appreciate it as honesty.
And he says, secondly, everything
you're saying, I agree with I a
hundred percent agree with everything.
Every point you're making a
refactor, you're saying makes sense.
And I agree with it.
It's got nothing to do with what
makes sense or what doesn't make
sense is are we doing what we think
the, uh, our, our constituents want?
And if we think that is what it is they
want, then we we'll we'll go and do it.
And that was a little, that was my very
first introduction to politics, I guess.
And it was a little
bit mind blowing to me.
I thanked him for his
honesty on all of that.
I didn't know what to say.
If you agree with me and
everything I say makes sense.
And everyone in the room agrees.
Why are you proceeding?
Yeah.
Right.
And it's, that's the obvious question.
Right?
And so governing a country as we currently
are by public opinion is damn scary.
, it's really, really scary.
Uh, yes.
And it's it's, as you say, it's
not public opinion, but it's
what perceived public opinion.
It's what I think public
opinion is right on.
And again, it's like,
um, Who were you asking?
What, what do you mean by public?
Well, I asked all my friends who I hang
out with at the, uh, that's, my friends
anti-gun rallies or whatever it might be.
Right.
So I go back to this notion
of lore and elite, right.
And the politicians talk to the
news people, the news people talk
to the, the, the big businesses.
The, each political party has a
Codery of people who support them.
Mm-hmm , uh, the.
Uh, conservatives are more
broadly based than the liberals.
So who are the big money?
People who are the big movers
and shakers behind the scenes.
This is the public that
they're talking about.
Right?
And the liberal government sense
pier Trudo had this notion of
astroturfing activist groups.
Mm.
So they fund certain groups, uh, to
claim they are popular groups, but
it's all funded by the government.
Mm-hmm . So it really isn't a
reflection of public opinion, but
a reflection of government money.
And then they count the number of groups
that they have funded as public opinion.
Mm.
So this is a quite complex
convoluted excuse for public opinion.
you're wrong.
It's not government by public opinion.
It's claimed to be government
by . Right.
Which is really scary because people
start losing the plot pretty quickly.
Even those who cuz there are some
well-intentioned people in, in politics.
Um, there are some that aren't as well.
Uh, but at the end of the day, people
look out for their best interests.
People will take the path of
least resistance everywhere.
Sure.
And it's human nature.
And if we expect human nature to
be any different between you and I
or our elected officials or those
who are charged with enforcing it.
We're sorely mistaken there.
There's just gonna be different.
There could be different levels as
to where that, uh, in it for myself
is as we talked about earlier.
And so
it becomes really important how
the structure of government has
been conceived and, and directed.
Canada is very centralized.
Ontario essentially runs the place and
it has to buy off a few people in Quebec
and a few people in the Maritimes,
maybe a few people in BC and that's it.
Mm-hmm and Ontario is run by
the ranch and elite and they
are run by a few power shakers.
So.
If you were in Nova Scotia, Manitoba
or British Columbia, and you're not
happy, how do you mobilize a group
of people strong enough to make your
concerns, uh, heard and respected?
Uh, that's very, very difficult,
but the nature of the structure.
But
last time that I recall that they properly
mobilized that group was called terrorists
and the emergency act was brought in
because they had a dissenting opinion and
they said, well, no, no, no, no, no, no.
It's cuz they're disrupting
the supply chain.
And then the time of COVID and the
time of crisis, the supply chain is
important and we have to uphold that.
And what happened like a
couple weeks later, wasn't it?
The, uh, the train strike,
was it CN, rail strike?
Did the government jump in to yes.
Help out that supply chain a
and, and certain groups are untouchable.
Mm.
And so, uh, Aboriginal, uh, and BLM and,
uh, certain other groups can do, can
violate the law block, block, uh, trains
block, uh, government, but not people
who are in the freedom trucker convoy.
Uh, and so.
This is different, uh, uh,
enforcement of the law.
And that's very scary itself
that just comes down to what's
politically acceptable to villainize
or to act upon and what would be
exactly expedient to, to get behind.
And that's, I mean, at some
point, This pendulum will shift.
I mean, it's gonna have to, I would
think, well ruled by the elite.
Uh, I mean, everywhere in the
world, government is a small number.
There's very few people actually run on
the thing mm-hmm , but in countries like
the Commonwealth, where the commoners
accept the rule by the elite, or at
least tolerate, or at least grumble
quietly and bury their guns, uh, that
is much less likely to lead to, uh,
uh, any kind of public discussion, uh,
opposition until the thing explodes.
Mm-hmm . And it may not explode.
It may not explode, uh, many
governments, uh, learn how to just
let out a little bit of pressure on
this pressure cooker until they keep,
keep running the thing or divert
attention.
right.
So it depends how clever the government
is, uh, or how much they can buy off,
uh, oppositions around the world find
that some of their key politicians
are owned by the O the other party.
And, and that's that's standard politics.
Sure.
It is man.
You know, so anyway, uh, I'm
not sure this is uplifting.
No, I know.
You
know, , uh, it, it's interesting and
it's important I think to talk about,
and I really think it's important to
have a, um, a better understanding.
You've obviously looked at
these issues from a very.
Um, broad level and a
very acute level, right?
Uh, you've you've, uh, delved into
certain areas very, very deeply.
And you have a lot to say on it in the, in
the area of, of, um, firearms and firearms
control and the, and the means thereof.
You're an expert.
That's, that's what you do.
Wow.
Any lawyer knows that, uh,
you can find an expert on all
sides of the question, right?
So I may have spent a, a lot of time
and energy studying, but I am just
one voice and one person trying to
figure out to the best of my ability
what's going on, but certainly there
are other people with other ideas.
What advice would you have for people
who are saying, look at enough's enough,
we gotta have our voice heard some way.
well, the first thing is
to make that decision.
And many people don't even get
that far, uh, because going
along to get along is easier.
You've got a job, you've got a
family, you've got career goals.
And, and if, if it's, if guns are just
a hobby or politics is just a, a, a
Facebook place to say nasty thing,
uh, then, then people don't even get.
To that question, which
is the crucial, right?
Then once you do decide, then you
have to decide what is reasonable.
And since there are already groups
around that, that have decided that
they, what they think is reasonable,
then you should assess them.
So, uh, in the gun area, look at the
NFA, look at the CS, S a look at the
CC F R get involved, find out what
they're doing, send them some money,
uh, be critical, uh, uh, listen to them.
Every group has strengths and weaknesses.
Because they're human and see
which one Accords, which group
Accords most closely to your own
interests and you think is effective.
Uh, make sure they're financially
honest because in a world of, of
ignorant peasants, uh, CSNs, uh, find,
uh, lots of business opportunities.
Mm-hmm so, uh, I'm I don't
know that any of the groups I've
mentioned are Charltons, I'm just
saying that one should make sure
that they, their books are public.
Make sure that, uh, uh, what their
actions are known and evaluate him smart.
Uh, and then.
Put your best effort involved and,
uh, and help out join political
parties, join two or three.
See what they're about.
Uh, how do they listen to the grassroots?
How do they listen to their leaders?
What can you do to be influential?
Pick one?
Mm.
Put some time, energy and money into it.
Will you change the universe?
No,
no, but little by little, right?
How do you, how do you eat
an elephant one bite at a
time.
And, and if you don't, if you see Canada
and don't like it go someplace else.
Yeah.
Or, or, or change it.
Yeah.
I mean, there's lots of places in the
universe that are, that are tolerable.
I've lived in a couple of countries.
I like France.
I liked England.
I liked the United States.
Uh mm-hmm I like Canada.
I mean, uh, there's lots of good places.
Costa Rica, Singapore, Korea.
There's all kinds of really
nice countries in their world.
Mm-hmm uh, which one suits you.
Yeah.
I remember reading a book many years
ago, supposed to be banned in Canada.
I think we call it PT.
It was basically just tax evasion
was, was the book, but it was
sold under a philosophy of, uh,
being what a perpetual traveler.
Yeah.
Or it didn't stand for anything, but
it had a bunch of, and what, one of
the precepts of it was, you know, if
you really like a certain thing and
you can't do that in your country,
what's holding you there really?
Um, that's right.
So
interesting is there, so, I mean,
I, my, my recipes get involved.
Uh, I wasn't a gun person when I started.
And my curiosity got me
to learn more or more.
And so I began collecting guns.
I began hunting.
I began, uh, target shooting,
and I discovered how much
fun and enjoyable it was.
Um, I was shocked that the people
at the Barnett rifle club were
perfectly reasonable if, if different
than my university professors.
And eventually I discovered
that, uh, they made more sense.
They were just rational.
Good sense.
Kind of salt of the earth people
mm-hmm . Uh, and so I got involved
and started thinking about things.
Uh, and again, I'm a professor I write,
I think, uh, I criticize that's my, my
major contribution to any of this mm-hmm
is there anything else that
we should be bringing up?
Well, one of the things I've.
Developed is, uh, the BC w
F political action Alliance.
Right?
I, I wear three hats.
The professor hat is what we spent
today talking about, but I'm also a
volunteer with BC wildlife mm-hmm and
I chair their firearms committee.
And that is essentially, uh,
educating the membership and
motivating them to get involved.
Like I just argued here mm-hmm
that they should get involved in.
And the BC WF is one way
to stand up for hunters.
Mm-hmm . Um, one of my colleagues in B CW
w F uh, uh, has worked really hard with
bill for BC, uh government's uh, bill and,
uh, they, the BCW F is mostly interested
in the impact of this legislation on
gun clubs, but both C 71 C 21 as well.
Bill C four, uh, enlarge
the red flag laws.
Mm.
And I find this incredibly scary on the
grounds that we were talking earlier,
that you may have nothing to hide.
You may be a completely honest, upstanding
people, but you could be slandered.
You can be caught in trouble.
A red flag erases all.
Judicial defenses for having your guns
taken away and your freedom taken away.
Right?
Uh, we're not talking just about angry
ex-wives or ex-husbands, we're not
talking about doctors who don't know
anything about guns, but all social
workers, any government employee.
Can or any person who knows one of these
can't claim that you are dangerous.
And on the basis of that, a
police can come take all your
guns and put you in jail.
Mm-hmm and now you have to
defend that you are not dangerous.
That is very scary and get your guns back.
Very scary.
And, and it's very scary
because however, not dangerous.
You are with the demonization of guns,
uh, normal people who know nothing
about guns can easily be frightened.
Sure.
Uh, it wasn't just public theater.
When you ran into a police, uh, uh,
uh, charges, they had SWAT teams, they
had armed people all around, partly
for theater, but partly because some of
those people were actually frightened.
They're
fearful.
Sure.
And in my circumstance, you know,
if I responded differently than
somebody else, would've it could
have been a very different situation.
That's right.
I just looked at this and in the back
of my head, I was kind of like laughing.
Like, they're gonna figure this out.
And like, these are people
I work with all the time.
They'll, they'll, they'll
figure it out in a second.
They're they must be falling up.
I had no idea what was going on.
It took long time and the amount of
money and resources I was put into
trying to double down on that lie.
It was pretty impressive.
I mean, the amount they knew within the
first couple hours, they made a mistake.
They knew definitively within the
first three days, they made a mistake.
And by the end of the week,
they had it written that
they'd, they'd really messed up.
Still spent eight years trying to
double down and, and, uh, uh, cover
up the mistake, which is, um, with
that sort of intention and mindset.
It can very easily go astray
in the heat of the moment.
Some people get angry.
Some people get angry.
Uh, I knew one, I know one person,
an ex policeman who objected to
this new hydro meters, uh, and he
thought that they were a violation.
And so he objected angrily to
a hydro worker coming onto his
property to change the meter.
Mm.
That led to his guns being
confiscated, he'd being arrested.
And, uh, he had to fight to, uh, get
both his guns back and his freedom.
Mm.
Uh, so if people get angry
and they resist either through
arrogance ignorance, or just.
Uh, a wrong response.
Things can go bad very
quickly.
That's one thing that I found within
the fires community in Canada,
by and large, the option to get
angry seems greatly diminished.
People are, are very, very cognizant
of the fact that their anger could
be either a mm-hmm well, it could
be misconstrued intentionally or.
Yeah, unintentionally, someone can
just be afraid of firearms or they
can say, aha, I'll use this tool now.
And in fact, there's this red flag law,
maybe I can lean on and do something with,
well, that's, that's
been my impression too.
Um, so many of the people I know who
own guns are incredibly responsible.
Mm-hmm, , I've taken media people to
the range to introduce 'em to guns.
And so they shoot rifle, shotgun
handgun, and I've had a couple of,
uh, reporters who cheeks flush.
They're so excited.
It, it, it looks sexual that
they are just so emotionally
involved with shooting a firearm.
And I don't see that kind of thing
with, we don't understand that.
Right.
And, and, and you and I talked
to 'em afterwards and they said,
whoa, a gun gives me so much power.
I feel like I could kill anybody.
I feel like I'm the boss of the universe.
And I think the gun owners, I know don't
feel like that they feel nobody humble.
They feel responsible
and in awe of the power.
Right.
But that means response maturity
and, and, and therefore they
don't get all emotional and crazy.
Right.
I've, I've actually seen the exact same
thing with, with, uh, new folks to the
range and reported typically people who
are, uh, adamantly against firearms,
but they acquiesce to the, uh, to the
invitation to show that they're a good
sport and that same statement, that
feeling of power when it was in my hands,
I have never, ever felt a feeling of
power by holding a firearm in my hand.
And I don't know anybody who does
well.
I, I feel the responsibility,
a
responsibility, and that's
a power if you wish.
Okay.
Uh, Gary click in, in his 1997 book on
guns in America has this notion that
the purpose of a gun is not killing.
The basic design feature, the basic
justification for a gun is power.
Hmm.
That it gives you power to do things
that you couldn't otherwise do.
Hmm.
So governments with guns have
power mm-hmm revolutionaries
with guns, have power criminals.
Uh, people defending
themselves have guns for power.
So obviously power isn't necessarily
a bad thing or a necessary good thing.
Mm.
But it's power.
Mm.
Uh, you can defend yourself.
A small hundred pound dripping
wet woman with a gun in her purse
can stop a 250 pound rapist.
Yes.
Um, a hunter who's 250 pounds, uh, with
a rifle can stop a thousand pound Mo.
Yes, this is power.
So it's not, uh, ecstatic,
crazy power, like my, my media
example, but a responsibility
that is comes with maturity.
Mm-hmm so the people I think we know
who have firearms licenses, American
and Canadian have a different level
of maturity for that matter or British
the ones I know anyway, mm-hmm, , uh,
certainly, uh, have responsibility
and can use these powers responsibly.
What's that old saying God made
man, but Sam Colt made man equal
yeah.
Colonel Colt Colonel Colt
made, um, very equal.
Anyway, I would like to add
political action Alliance among the
groups that people should consider
supporting the political action
Alliance is, uh, only function is
to run, uh, pro gun anti-liberal.
Election ads during election campaigns.
Mm.
Uh, we have been in existence since
the nineties and each federal election.
We run ads to the extent of our
budget, which is microscopic sure.
Uh, and we, uh, inform people
that, uh, gun laws are useless
and the liberals are wasting your
taxpayer money when they could do
something that actually is useful.
Like yes, improve healthcare, uh, keep,
keep violent people in jail longer.
Mm-hmm help violent
people become less violent.
Mm-hmm , uh, there's a lot
of things that could be done.
Um, but the, the gun control is really
not a step in any of those directions.
I agree.
Well, I think that's an excellent thing.
I'm gonna put links to that in
the podcast so people can see it.
We can, uh, both on YouTube.
You can take a look at the link
section, they'll link to these different
things.
I, I can give you a link, uh,
to justice for gun owners.ca.
Okay.
That's uh, the website that I use to
ask for money, ask for contributions and
put down my long winded, statistically,
uh, stuffed, uh, commentary.
uh, it's fantastic.
Well, Gary, thank you so very much
for being on the Silvercore Podcast,.
I really, really appreciate it.
I love chatting with you and,
uh, I'm hoping we'll have more
chats like this in the future.
Well,
thank you for having me.
I enjoyed it.
Uh, I hope, uh, uh, it was interesting
and I didn't just flap my gums
too much and hope people enjoy it.