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.
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.
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.
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.