Travis Bader: What started as a trip to support my friend and past
podcast guest, Sonny Smith at his title fight professional bare knuckle
boxing match in Alberta, along with other friends and past guests, Jason
Budd and Chance Burrells turned into an opportunity I couldn't pass up.
I sat down with Alberta's Chief Firearms Officer, Dr.
Terry Bryant, to dive deep into the politics and realities of
firearms ownership in Canada.
Ever wonder why some guns are banned while others aren't, despite
being essentially identical?
Tired of feeling like a criminal for exercising your right?
Want a glimpse into what the future could look like for Canadian firearms owners?
Buckle up because we're breaking it all down.
From Alberta's fight for sensible laws to how you can take action.
This episode is brought to you by the amazing people at Armament Technology.
Silvercore Club members, don't forget, you get 10 percent off
Tangent Theta, 15 percent off SAI and 20 percent off Tenebrex.
Now, let's get it rolling.
I'm joined today by Alberta's Chief Firearms Officer.
She's a dedicated advocate for responsible firearms ownership, bringing a wealth
of experience and a balanced approach to firearms regulation in Alberta.
We have the opportunity to explore her unique perspective on the challenges
and opportunities facing the firearms community and how she's working to ensure
fairness and safety in the province.
Welcome to the Silvercore podcast, Dr.
Terry Bryant.
Teri Bryant: Thank you, Travis.
It's a pleasure to be here today.
Travis Bader: So what, three years?
Are we on your three year anniversary today?
Three years yesterday.
Holy crow.
Three years, you've been a firearms officer here and chief
firearms officer for Alberta.
Teri Bryant: Yeah, it's, uh, it's been a wild ride.
I had no idea what I was getting myself into when I read this.
Travis Bader: Myself personally, there's always been confusion about
sort of the hierarchy within the firearms program, what it takes to be
a firearms officer, let alone what it takes to be a chief firearms officer.
Um, Opt in and opt out provinces has always been something that's been
a little bit, uh, confusing to me.
And I, I know others have brought that up as well.
Can you tell me a little bit about sort of how you got into this and
what the structure kind of looks like?
Teri Bryant: Okay, so, uh, I got into this in a different way than, uh, most, uh,
people who are chief firearms officers.
So if I could just take a step back.
So there's a chief firearms professor, uh, officer in every province.
So there's 10 of us, plus there's one for the Northwest Territories.
And, uh, most of those, uh, were appointed in a different way than me.
Because, and this comes to your point about opt out and
opt in provinces and so on.
So opt in provinces are ones where the province has assumed responsibility for
the administration of the Firearms Act, the Federal Firearms Act in Canada.
And so that means that the Chief Firearms Officer is appointed by the
province and the Uh, employees in the chief firearms office, the firearms
officers and other, uh, individuals there are provincial employees and opt
out province, uh, is a province that has chosen not to participate in the program.
And that means that, uh, all of the, the chief firearms officer is appointed
by the federal government and all of the employees are federal employees.
Hmm.
And Alberta was.
Uh, an opt out province as was Saskatchewan until September of 2021,
and then they, uh, there was a lengthy process before that to reach the decision.
But on September 1st, 2021, we became an opt in province, which meant
that, um, Um, my appointment came from the, uh, Minister of Justice
and Solicitor General at the time.
Uh, now we're just within the Ministry of Justice because
they've kind of split that off.
But, um, uh, Um, and of course it had to be approved by cabinet and everyone up
to the premier, but, um, and all my staff are provincially, uh, appointed as well.
So all the chief firearms officers have the role of administering.
the Canadian firearms program in their province.
Of course, how much they actually do themselves versus delegating to employees
depends on the size of the office.
If you're Ontario or Quebec and you have, you know, millions of
people you're serving, then you're not going to be as hands on.
If you're looking after Prince Edward Island and you've got just
a couple of people, probably you're going to be much more hands on.
Whether in, in, uh, the provincial public service or the federal public service.
Travis Bader: So this is unique, Alberta is the only province that has a situation
like this for the Chief Firearms Officer.
Teri Bryant: Uh, well, technically we're unique.
We weren't unique for a bit.
So there's, there are two, um, chief firearms officers who have the
expanded mandate that I have, not since Saskatchewan and Alberta, uh,
Saskatchewan went, uh, went provincial a few weeks after we did, but, uh,
they've since changed their structure a little bit so that their chief
firearms officer with the same title is.
Um, a non political person, the equivalent of my deputy, um, who
is a member of the public service.
And, uh, the, the person who previously was the chief firearms officer, they now
call him the commissioner of firearms.
Got it.
Okay.
So that's Robert Freeburg.
And so he has.
The firearms office and a couple of other things in, in Saskatchewan,
they didn't previously have a ballistic forensic lab and when they
created one, they put it under that.
And there's a couple of other things that's under his,
uh, control there as well.
Travis Bader: In your role as a chief firearms officer.
And I've actually got a, uh, I got a handy dandy little sheet here
that outlines the role of a chief firearms officer in Alberta, which
I thought was, was pretty neat.
But I know you and I, we looked at this before, chief firearms officer
with respective firearms matters in Alberta shall develop and implement.
Implement policies, procedures, and strategies.
A big mandate shall identify and conduct studies of specific issues
or a specific subject matter.
And may publish the results of those studies.
That's, there's a lot of trust right there.
That's, uh, shall review the programs and policies of the government
or other jurisdictions that may affect individuals as firearms.
Users and owners shall consult with and provide support to stakeholders.
This is an interesting one.
E shall engage in advocacy for and outreach to Alberta's firearms community.
And I'll just go through the last couple.
So provide information and advice to all levels of government, shall
develop and implement initiatives in coordination with other departments,
shall recommend the Shall recommend the establishment of advisory boards or
advisory committees by the minister with respect to specific issues or a specific
subject matter, and shall inform and educate Albertans, and shall carry out
any other prescribed responsibilities.
That's a pretty broad mandate.
That's a lot of responsibility.
But the one that I thought was really interesting was.
So engaging in advocacy for an outreach to Alberta's firearms community.
Teri Bryant: And so, so that's actually what I, uh, you know, that, that list
that you have, uh, just enumerated, that's in addition to my role as being
responsible for the administration of the federal firearms act in Alberta.
And so Um, that part, the part that I do that is the same as what other
people do, uh, in who are chief firearms officers across the country,
uh, that's a relatively small part of my time, less than half certainly.
Travis Bader: Okay.
Teri Bryant: And, uh, because there are certain things like range approvals and,
and that, that I have to do personally.
Um, but most of my time is on the, the other part, uh, which is the list that
you've enumerated there, particularly.
To shorten that list part of my job is not just to administer the law as
it is now But to figure out what it should be and Advocate to make changes.
And so part of finding out what it should be is, as you've mentioned, conducting
formal studies and things like that.
And we've got a couple of those, uh, underway.
And another part of it is, uh, consulting with Albertans to
find out what their problems are.
Now many of those are things that I was aware of before.
But, you know, no one, Uh, in the firearms community is very, very diverse, right?
It includes people who are Olympic target shooters.
It includes, uh, ranchers, uh, who have a rifle in the pickup
truck for, uh, protecting their livestock or things like that.
And so I've been a member of the firearms community all my life.
So I have had exposure to many of these things, but more to some than others.
And so, uh, every weekend, basically I am out at some kind of event.
Uh, whether it is a gun show or, um, a shooting competition or the annual
general meeting of an organization so that I can hear straight from Albertans
what the issues are that they face.
And also that gives me an opportunity to educate them a little bit about
what our office does Um, what the federal government does, what we
are, as an office are doing about what the federal government does,
uh, and, uh, things like that.
So, uh, so that's a, that's a very, um,
It's a part of the role that I very much enjoy because it gets me out
talking to Albertans, particularly firearms owners, uh, who are,
you know, that's the community.
Those are my people, as I always say.
Uh, and it also means that, uh, I get to go all around the province.
So I travel over 30, 000 kilometers a year by car around the province.
Um, and so I visited everywhere from Milk River, 10 kilometers north of the U.
S.
border, to Fort Mac in the north, from Grand Prairie and, and Beaver Lodge
and, and, uh, Coleman in the west to, um, you know, Medicine Hat and
Consort and Provost, uh, in the east.
So, um, there's, it's, it's enabled me to see much more of the
province than most people see and.
Because I also, my, all my permanent homes in Calgary, I have a, an apartment
in downtown Edmonton, um, I get to see a lot more diverse aspects of Alberta
than most people do, because I see the rural areas, I talk to rural people,
I have this apartment in Edmonton.
In downtown Edmonton, where I see some of the challenges that
people in an urban settings face.
So it gives me a very diverse perspective on what Albertans are
experiencing and what they need.
And it gives me the opportunity to talk to people from a wide range of backgrounds.
Travis Bader: Now you come from a long lineage of firearms
owners and users and collectors.
And I, as well, um, From a very young age, being exposed at the gun
shows and in the firearms community and watching the different rules and
regulations as they come into place.
Uh, there's been a growing sort of us against them sort of mentality
and like, why are they picking on us?
Um, uh, sort of mindset within the firearms community.
Was that a challenge for you to overcome when you were, when you first came into
your position as a chief firearms officer?
I know now you're welcomed with open arms, but were you looked at
as the enemy when you first came in?
Teri Bryant: Well, uh, so there were certainly a lot of people in
the community that knew me, like particularly those around Calgary and
in the, in the collecting community.
And, um, so those people knew me and they were happy to see me take the job.
Of course, there are a lot of people in the firearms community, um, who
were in other areas of the province who may not have known me as well.
And a lot of people in the firearms community that have a more tenuous
connection, like they're not plugged in as much, uh, because I know for people
like you and me every day we're looking at and seeing what's the latest thing.
We get all kinds of, you know, email blasts from the different organizations
about the latest court decisions and challenges and, and things like that.
But a lot of people aren't that connected.
And so what I did to start off with was, uh, initially using my own vehicle, my own
materials and my own, uh, you know, paying for it myself, uh, to start with, um, I
went to gun shows, which is a place where a lot of different parts of the firearms
community intersect and, uh, set up a display with some firearms that I thought
would attract attention because I have.
Some firearms that tend to attract attention.
I like to have the coolest guns at any gun show.
Um, and so a matter of opinion, but I'm not, perhaps I'm not a totally
unbiased, uh, uh, judge of that subject, but what would happen then is as people
are walking by, They would see the, you know, I had, uh, signs and they
would see, Oh, here's some cool guns.
And then I would give me a, once soon as they paused it, bang, I can like,
you know, like, like an insurance salesman or something, you know, I
jump on it and, and, uh, and make my pitch and engage in a conversation.
And then they realized more and more people realized that.
Um, you know, we were doing things differently that, uh, we do have
to administer the federal law.
We don't get to make the law ourselves yet, um, but, um, we do have, it can make
a big difference in how things are done because, uh, I believe that, uh, most
people are, are reasonable and if you, uh, approach them in a reasonable fashion.
And then you'll get a much more positive reaction.
So we try not to.
Uh, you know, bang on the table and say you have to do
this or you have to do that.
We educate them about what the law is and what potential consequences
are if you, if you don't do that.
But we also point out that many of these things, many aspects
of firearms regulations in, in Canada don't make sense.
And so we talk to them about that, recognize that we, yes, we know
that it doesn't make sense that this particular firearm is classified
this way and this one that's the same is classified a different way.
Um, so we, you know, that we understand and sympathize with the
problems there, but not just that we sympathize, but that we're actively
engaged in trying to change that.
And that I think has resulted in a totally different reception.
Uh, want us to come to gun shows.
And now, of course, we have a much more elaborate, uh, way of participating.
So I have some fancy table cloths and pop up banners.
And, um, ever since the federal government required that, uh, sellers
of nonrestricted firearms verify the validity of the, the pals of, uh,
buyers, um, That was very hard for people to do in the gun show environment.
So, uh, I have my staff come there and we've worked out an arrangement with
the registry so that we can provide that service in person at shows, which is
something that doesn't happen everywhere and happens in few places, um, elsewhere.
But that's what we needed to do to be able to, uh, ensure that gun
shows were able to remain compliant with the law and that they were.
Uh, there was no, there wasn't going to be an easy way for
the feds to shut them down.
Travis Bader: You know, and you, you bring up a few different points
here, and I'm trying to think of what should be the most logical for me
to, to, uh, to move from, but maybe, maybe the education piece there.
And I, I know I've talked on the podcast before about the firearms
officer who explained to me about normative process and I, you know,
we've chatted about this as well.
Uh, just like you were saying, why, why is something deemed as one classification
and it's the same as another firearm and it's deemed in a different classification.
And there was a point of, uh, confusion around the classification
of firearms that I was in possession of through my business.
And the firearms program had came in, they looked at them, they had, uh, verified
them, a couple of firearms officers.
And they said, Travis, you have to register these as this type over here.
And I'm sitting there all paranoid and nervous.
And, uh, like, what are you trying to entrap me into?
Because it's, the law says different.
I look at a different, but I tell you what, if you want to do it,
you guys proceed, you go ahead and you register it as you see fit.
Right.
And they said, no, no, we want you to do it, Travis.
And I'm like, oh man, what are they trying to do here?
So.
Talked to my MLA.
She talked to Minister Blaney and they said, this doesn't make sense.
Just tell him to hold off.
We're discussing it at the ministerial level.
I mentioned this to the firearms officer when they, uh, this
fellow was in my business and he said, we don't give an expletive.
Uh, what minister Blaney says, I don't give an F what the MLA says,
they don't make the laws we do.
And he's explained to me, it was done through a process of
normative, normative process.
Um, now that's one individual talking out of his pocket, talking about, uh,
his opinion, but it's easy to paint the general mass by the actions of the one.
Um, but there was an apology that came through really quickly the next
day, but it brought to mind the.
Issue of normative process.
He says, you know, if we do things in a certain way, if there's layers
of ambiguity within the law, the courts will turn around and say,
well, how's it generally done?
How's it accepted?
And that's where I see the value of this education, both for the general
public, the firearms community, as well as for the firearms program,
for everyone to be singing from the same song sheet, to understand the
struggles that the firearms community has, to understand the challenges.
Which you have a very, you've got your finger on the pulse there and for the
firearms community to understand the struggles and limitations that the
firearms officers have to deal with.
And if we're able to sing from the same song sheet and create a normative
process that works for public safety, for everybody, and was able to navigate
the ambiguity of all the, the hodgepodge of firearms laws that we have, I think
that's where the power of discussions like this really comes into play.
Um, if, since you are intimately aware of the firearms community, both as prior
to being chief firearms officer, as well as even more so now that you're,
you're in this position, you're What, what are some of the common things that
you see that people have contention with that maybe they're approaching it
in a fashion that's not serving their best interests and maybe there's a
better way that it could be approached?
Teri Bryant: Well, I think the main thing is to, um, to understand that
at least in, in our case, we, our goal is to preserve the firearms community.
Of course, our number one goal is public safety.
Sure.
But, um, I actually believe we need to preserve the firearms community
in order to maintain public safety.
And the reason for that is that every country has a firearms culture.
And um, so the firearms community in all its different aspects, whether
it's gun shows, uh, people who are, uh, training people to, to, uh, get
their hunting license, people are training to get their firearms license.
Um, all of these people are gun clubs that organize shoots and so
on, um, all of these people are contributing to forming a culture.
And uh, I feel that the firearms community is a very positive influence.
It can be a very positive influence and we can shape that a little bit
by helping them to understand, you know, is required to comply with
certain rules and things like that.
But, uh, if we create a firearms culture.
that is based around responsibility and respect and safety, then that's
going to pay huge dividends in terms of, uh, of public safety.
And on the other hand, if you got rid of the firearms community, like somehow you
managed, uh, some, some Mandarin in Ottawa waved a magic wand and we all went away.
Uh, And I suspect there are a few that might want to do that, uh, but,
uh, if they suddenly did that, there would still be a firearms culture in
Canada, but how would that be shaped?
It would be shaped by, uh, like ultraviolent video games and
movies coming out of Hollywood.
And, uh, social media posts by gangbangers and things like that.
And that would be how people thought about firearms and that would not
contribute to public safety because then if people saw a firearm,
they'd, Oh, this is how you do it.
You wave it around like this and you go like this to look
tough and this kind of thing.
And.
Uh, and so, uh, the firearms community in all its aspects and all the people
who work very hard, you know, using their own free time, often their
own resources to educate people.
Um, you know, people who, uh, for example, at a collector's show are educating people
about the historical value of firearms.
And the role that they have played in the evolution of our society and
the technologies of it, it creates a different mindset around them.
And that's something that contributes very greatly to public safety and
that we want to continue to encourage.
Travis Bader: Yeah.
You know, I find like different, different groups will attract
different types of people.
The firearms community I find tends to attract a lot of independent
minded sort of individuals.
Yeah.
I was teaching a class of training instructors to teach
a basic firearm safety course.
And just for fun, I, I ask them like, aside from guns, like, what are you into?
And by and large, everyone comes back with, well, I'm into scuba diving, or
I'm into rock climbing, or I'm into collecting, or I'm into, and all their
other activities that they're listing off are, aren't team activities, they
aren't group sort of activities, and, uh, I find, uh, To a degree that can
fragment the firearms community because everyone's like, just leave me alone.
Let me do my own thing.
Teri Bryant: And
Travis Bader: then they will also try and lean on other organizations to
make things, to affect sort of change for them, uh, whatever that might be.
And they sort of, uh, give control over to a third party without realizing
the amount of personal agency each individual firearms owner actually
has when it comes to affecting change within the organization.
Within the community, within the culture, the laws, and dealing
with the firearms program.
Um, I, I know there's a lot of very, uh, frustrated individuals when they
talk about the, uh, the OIC, the recent ordering council, or they
talk about the, the handgun freeze.
Uh, what can individuals do to help?
support some common sense legislation?
Teri Bryant: I'm glad you asked that because this is a point that I make
quite frequently and just goes beyond, you know, everybody has a bit of a
personal philosophy and part of my personal philosophy and my approach to
life is is being an engaged citizen.
And, so, being a citizen, it isn't just a matter of, well, it
says nationality Canadian on my passport, or something like that.
It means that you are engaged in, uh, creating the society that we all live in.
And, so, people are very keen on expressing things about their ideas, about
their freedoms, but they also have to play a role, have to be, have to, Accept
responsibility for the way society is.
And that means if you are going to play an engaged role, then you will
the benefit of that, I mean, you'll get to meet other people that are are like
minded, but it also means you're you will have less frustration Because I
mean, I was more frustrated before I had this job, uh, because, uh, although I
was active in a number of ways, I didn't have some of the abilities to do things
to accomplish things that I have now.
So I wake up every day and I'm energized because I see possibilities to do things.
And some people also, I'm not the only one who recognizes this.
I, it's a common question.
One of the common questions that I get asked at, at, uh, gun
shows and other events where I appear is, well, what can I do?
You know, I'm, I'm not a, uh, uh, chief firearms officer.
I'm not a former professor.
I'm not this.
I'm just.
You know, they say just this, and, um, but what can I do?
Well, I always say there's three things that everybody should be doing.
So, as a preface to that, the firearms community has to recognize
that we're a minority, okay?
In Alberta, for example, uh, the population's about 5 million, maybe 3.
5 million adults.
There's 360, 000 people who have a, a, uh, possession and acquisition license.
So that means we're about 10 percent of the adult population.
Of course, some of the, you know, that's a, a wife may use her
husband's guns or vice versa.
So, so there's more users.
You know, it gives you some idea of order of magnitude.
This shocks some people because when they, uh, they're thinking,
Oh, all my friends own guns.
So, you know, but, but that's not, that's not, you know, the overall reality.
So as a, as a very small minority and one that is not well understood because
in today's society, even in Alberta, which is a very pro gun province where
firearms have, have You know, a lot of things have happened in our country, and
I think the economy has played a very important role in our traditions, in our
history, in our culture, in our economy.
Um, even here we're a small minority, and a lot of people here, especially
because most of the population growth has happened in our big cities,
don't have much first hand exposure.
So what that means, because we're a minority and we're a misunderstood
minority, that we People either have no opinion about us or that
are not a positive one, uh, then.
We need to be highly mobilized and you know, they may not a hundred
percent agree with every perspective that you have But they'll recognize
the legitimacy of your concerns.
Mm hmm.
And that's a really important thing.
Travis Bader: Yeah Yeah, I think the ability to articulate those concerns
in a way that, uh, makes people aware of the broader implications, like if
it's, if they're concerned about the firearms confiscation, uh, that's one
aspect of the concern, but the other aspect is can we Confiscating, uh,
personal property just through ordering counsel without due process, which could
affect a broader, a broader population.
Maybe that's one way to help, uh, win allies out there.
I know the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses has
taken the, uh, the amount of money that's being spent as a, as a way
to try and win hearts and minds.
We don't care really one way or the other about the firearm side, but.
The amount of money that's being diverted into something that isn't showing any net
positive effect, this should be addressed.
Teri Bryant: Well, there's, there are aspects of the firearms issue that
should be of concern to everyone, whether they own firearms or not.
So you've alluded to one of them, which is the whole property rights issue.
Um, property rights are not particularly well protected under, under Canadian law.
Right.
Uh, in fact.
Some would say they're barely recognized, right?
Um, but, uh, you know, that's an important thing for everyone that
if, if, uh, the federal government establishes the precedent that they can
come along and take your property when you have done nothing wrong, and when
you are posing no risk to society, and when they have presented no evidence
that the property they want to take.
If a firearm is of any danger to anyone, then that's a very dangerous precedent.
And there are similarly many other aspects of, uh, federal firearms policy that
people should be gravely concerned about.
I expressed this right after I took office, um, I wrote a
letter as early as November.
I remember I took office in September and I wrote it off as early as November.
Um, I wrote a formal letter, which then was, you know, had to work its way through
and get, uh, get approval to go out pointing out the huge opportunity cost.
Opportunity cost is, it's a fancy economics term for what, what
else could you do with the money?
Okay.
Right.
And so, you know, the, with the, this firearms confiscation plan, uh, They've,
first of all, they've lowballed what the cost is going to be, um, and then they've
also, uh, not recognized the alternative uses that that money could fit.
Like I said at the time that I thought probably it would cost, you
know, a lowball estimate I thought would be a couple of billion dollars.
And So, yeah.
Uh, so, I mean, so far they've admitted to spending, I say admitted because
who knows how much the actual figure, but they've admitted to spending 42
million and they've accomplished nothing.
And so, um, if they are to, uh, to carry this out all across the country, then
it would be, uh, an enormous expense when, you know, we could use more
police officers, more border agents.
So, if you want to take a broader look at some of the underlying
problems that that generate violence.
You could hire more social workers or addiction counselors, or, you know,
people to get, uh, uh, gang members out of that destructive lifestyle.
So there's so many alternative uses of that, uh, that money.
And.
Uh, you know, I know there's, there are certain politicians that
believe there's a bottomless well that they can always just print more
and the budget will balance itself.
Uh, but you know, that money has to come from somewhere.
And so I think it's, it's important to people recognize those, those,
uh, alternative uses and also the corrosive impact that programs
like that, that are clearly useless and that are, uh, attacking.
people's property rights and, uh, their other freedoms.
Uh, it's important that people recognize that, uh, those, those, uh, actions
have consequences beyond finance.
They undermine confidence in the system.
And, you know, every society, every country has to have Um, people have to
have confidence in their government, and all around the world we see that
that is being undermined, that people are lacking confidence, and there's all
kinds of contributing factors there, some point to social media or one
thing or another, but governments have to look long and hard at themselves.
And see whether their actions are undermining public
confidence or reinforcing it.
And that's one of the things when I, when I get philosophical, what I
think about my job is I want to help restore confidence in government,
not as the solution to everything.
We have to have some level of government.
You know, you can't have a society that's just total anarchy, you know,
people running around doing anything they want to anybody they want
without regard for the consequences.
But the way that we will get the kind of government that we need to have is when
the people who are involved in government recognize their responsibility to help
reinforce confidence in the system.
And when they do that.
Then other people will not shy away from public service.
They'll say, yeah, I want to be, I want to help be part of
the solution, not the problem.
So I'm not just going to sit here and carp.
I'm going to get involved and I'm going to help to create the kind of government
that I want to see our country have.
And it's only when we all do that, that we will get the kind
of government we want to have.
And I think that firearms owners are uniquely positioned.
to help in that process because they have been, uh, sort of the canaries in
the coal mine for many of the attacks on individual liberty and, uh, on our, On
the credibility of our, of our system.
They're the ones who are suffering this first.
And so they see it.
And if they get involved, they can hopefully prevent this sort of corrosive
rot from, uh, eating away at our system so much that it becomes irreparable.
I don't think anybody wants to see that, but if we don't want to see
it, we've got to play an active role.
Travis Bader: So I have some theories as to why firearms owners are the
canary in the coal mine, so to speak.
Um, and I could, I can let you know what they are, or do you have
theories as to why that might be?
Teri Bryant: Uh, well, I think if you, if you look historically the people
who become the scapegoats of the The, um, uh, scapegoats for problems are
typically people who are misunderstood.
They might be misunderstood because they're from a particular ethnic
or racial or religious group, or in our case, because they are members
of a group who do an activity that many people don't understand.
And so if you want to get something.
Uh, if you want to eat away at something, it's easy to, it's easiest
if you use, uh, precedence with people who are not well understood, because
it's easier to make them scapegoats.
Right?
And so, since we're not well understood, it's easier to make us scapegoats.
And so, since people don't understand, well, why does
somebody need to have a gun?
Or, if you have a gun, why would you need two?
Travis Bader: Well,
Teri Bryant: people don't understand.
I mean, my answer to, well, why do you need more than one gun is, well, why does
a mechanic have more than one wrench?
Yeah, that's right.
Yeah, if one works.
They're tools, and, you know, I mean, If you get a Crescent wrench,
it could do a lot of wrenches, but it's not as good as, as an actual
wrench that's a nine sixteenths or an 11 millimeter or, or whatever.
So that's why mechanics.
Have have lots of wrenches, and that's why people who want to do
different things with guns have more than one gun because different
ones are good for different things.
Travis Bader: Yes.
Teri Bryant: And, uh, so, so anyway, I think it's, you know, at least
partially that kind of the fact that we're as people who are misunderstood,
it's easier to scapegoat us.
And once you establish that precedent.
Then you can gradually, uh, you know, expand it out.
And next thing you know, the person who thought, Oh, they'll never come for me.
Realizes.
That they are coming for you and, you know, like in the case of the,
of the gun grab, um, they go after rifles that, uh, and other firearms.
There's lots of things actually that aren't even in the, the
modern sporting rifle category.
They go after modern sporting rifles because it doesn't
look like a traditional gun.
And why would you, why would you want to have that?
Why do you need to have that?
But if the federal government succeeds in establishing a system.
Uh, procedure, an infrastructure for, uh, confiscating those firearms after years
of work and many, well, by that time it'll probably be at least hundreds of millions
just to set up that infrastructure.
Mm hmm.
Do you think they're only going to use it once?
No.
They'll have a list every year.
And so that's why this, this, uh, nefarious tendency has
to be nipped in the bud.
Mm.
And, um, you know, the other thing about this, this particular, uh, pro
set of prohibitions was it broke all of the sort of unwritten rules, right?
The unwritten rule was when they prohibited things.
people would get grandfathered and they could at least keep their stuff.
And this violated that trust.
You know, so, um, this was very, this set of measures was especially corrosive
because it not only, uh, attacked people who We're not contributing to
the problem, but it also undermined all of the assumptions that people had made
about how things would be done fairly.
And so, um, I think that, that was a, a, a major blunder.
Um, and I, the positive aspect of that I suppose is when people make really major
blunders, it's easier for other people to recognize that they are blunders.
Sure.
And unfortunately You know, the people who were involved in that keep doubling
down and thinking that, uh, well, if we just spend a little bit more
money and, or a lot more money, uh, and more time it's going to, but you
know, uh, a bad idea is a bad idea.
You dig yourself in a hole.
The best solution is to stop digging, to abandon this whole idea and recognize
that this was Uh, a bad idea from the start and a bad idea poorly implemented.
Travis Bader: Yeah.
There, there's two thoughts on the, they got the whole dig thought, okay.
Best thing to do is stop digging that hole, find your way out.
The other one is, okay, you found yourself into the darkest part of the forest.
And they say, well, just keep pushing through it.
There's going to be light at the end of the tunnel.
And maybe they're thinking that my theory on it is, I mean, the people
who come up with these ideas and laws, there's going to be those very few
who are just fanatical and they have.
They're not open to reasonable persuasion, but most of them
are going to be intelligent.
Most of them can look at the numbers, most of them can look at the statistics,
and I've always thought it was more of a process of just being able to
paint your opponent in a certain way, and to use something that's in the
public mind as Uh, perhaps a negative and say, we're going to do something
about what the public perceives as negative and our opponent over here,
all they want to do is more negative.
Right.
And I've, I've always thought that that was sort of that, that had to be
for the logical common sense person.
The reason why they'd be pushing something forward was wasn't so
much that they actually believe what they're doing is going to affect
a positive change because clearly.
Clearly the statistics and the outcome isn't showing that, but it's how to
show the other person, paint them into a negative corner so that they can use
that for, um, their own political means.
And recently I was asked to be on a podcast called the Horrible People
Podcast and, uh, uh, Jen McDonald, Nia Gadbois was the, is a host of that one.
She's putting it out.
And I said, I love the name.
I love what you're doing.
That's going to be catchy.
People are going to look at that.
Boop.
What's, what's your goal here?
And she says, well, you know, I want to show how the firearms community is shown
in a negative light and how the real story behind people, we're not horrible
people and we're members of the community.
I said, well, that's all fantastic, but who's going to listen to this, right?
And really the people who are going to listen to it is the firearms community.
And it's going to be a closed echo chamber of people chanting to themselves
and yeah, we're, we're really good.
There needs to be a means for, uh, the firearms community to
reach the broader general public.
And I think what you brought up there, it was what I brought up with her.
I said, well, What if you, instead of just dealing on the gun side of things, dealt
with othering and how people are othered and you can have people from all different
backgrounds, um, religious beliefs, ethnicities, whatever, that have been
othered and look at how the media portrays them in a politically expedient way.
So now you're gaining the support of other groups, you're showing the process
of othering and what that looks like.
I, I might be biased, but I think the power of the, um, the collective masses
through the media is way more powerful and affecting positive change than any
legal recourse that we possibly have.
Teri Bryant: Yeah.
Well, I think, I think, um, you know, that's, uh, rec, helping
people, other people outside the firearms community to recognize the
importance of the precedents, the negative precedents that are being
set here is a very important thing.
Yes.
And.
Um, so that's, that's why in Alberta, I think, uh, there are a lot of people
who, the arguments are more receptive, more well received here in Alberta.
And that's because many of the issues that are touched on are ones that are
important to people, even if they are not affected directly by them themselves.
So, you know, one of the things about Alberta, you know, uh, we're
known for our, uh, emphasis on property rights and, you know, people
might wonder, well, why is that?
And if you think about it historically, it makes a great deal of sense
because when Alberta was being settled, how did we make our money?
Well, Agriculture, ranching, you need to have property, you've got land,
you've got livestock, uh, you've got equipment, um, and you know, even if
you're, uh, not ranching, but you're, you know, you're, you're, uh, seeding
crops, you need, uh, lots of equipment.
So that property is your livelihood.
It is, there's a very direct connection between property rights.
And your livelihood.
And then subsequently we had the oil boom and, and, uh, you know, which has,
of course, it has ups and downs over time, but in oil as well, your property
rights and your, um, you know, your, uh, the royalties that come off of that
has helped to support the province.
So property, uh, the recognition that property is an important
Important part of what enables us to be prosperous and also to live an
independent, self reliant lifestyle.
That awareness is much stronger here in Alberta than it is in many other places.
And so, um, People may not recognize, uh, or even if they're a gun person,
they might say, well, yeah, but I don't have an AR 15, uh, you know, well, yeah.
But if they take that away, how long, you know, before they take the other ones away
and then how long before they decide that.
You know, well, do you really need to be owning land?
I mean, it isn't, shouldn't that be owned by the state so they can,
we can feed the masses with it?
Well, see how well I, I studied in the Soviet union, so I know how well
the whole collective farm thing works, you know, um, uh, so, you know, here
in Alberta, people are much more receptive to these kinds of concerns.
And I think in that regard, we can be a beacon for the rest of the country because
we're If you look across, you know, I, I pretty much confined myself to my
little bailiwick, which is the firearms issue, but across a wide range of issues.
Alberta has not been afraid to challenge the, uh, the received wisdom, the, the,
uh, uh, the co, the popular ideas of the day and come up with ideas that.
Often end up working better and if they don't work better, then we abandon
those and come up with an even better idea because we're not afraid to be
different and that comes from that independent mindset that we have because
we've grown up as a society of people who were farmers and ranchers and
people who are living on their own.
You know, you talk to some people, they live in some of the more
remote parts of the province.
They come to town every once in a while, otherwise, I mean, the
reason they're out there is they want people to leave them alone.
And you know, that, that when the federal government keeps coming in
and coming up with ideas that are intruding on their ideas, they've
moved somewhere where their activities don't have any impact on anybody.
They, they just want to be left alone.
And when the federal government won't leave people alone, but keeps badgering
them and coming after them, even when they're not doing anything, that
really rubs Albertans the wrong way.
Travis Bader: You are a very strong person and you stand up for what you know to
be true, which takes a lot of courage.
And I should imagine, do you find you get much flack or heat for, Stepping up and
saying, I don't agree with this policy, or I don't agree with this process.
There's a better way that we can do it.
Teri Bryant: Well, surprisingly little, actually, um, because, uh, so a couple
of things, first of all, I mean, people might think, Oh, Terry's so courageous.
She does this.
I have a mandate.
So it says that I'm supposed to do this.
Okay.
Whereas if you, if you know, if I was a federally appointed CFO, I'd get,
I'd have been fired within a week.
Okay.
Uh, uh, foreseeing and doing the things that I do.
Um, it's not just me, you know, I have a whole team here that is helping me to, uh,
establish, uh, a different way of looking at the firearms issue, a different way
of relating to the firearms community.
I have political support, you know, all of the ministers, including our current,
uh, minister of justice, Mickey Amory.
They've all been very supportive.
I've spoken to the premier a few times.
She's a busy lady, so I don't see her on a real regular basis.
Mm-Hmm.
. But every interaction I've had with her, she has expressed
the strongest possible support.
Uh, I know many of the members of Cabinet and they, uh, also are very supportive,
and so, you know, it's a little easier.
To be courageous when, you know, you're not alone.
Sure.
Yes.
So, so I don't want to overplay my, uh, you know, by a valiant role in
this, in this, uh, in this whole thing.
Uh, but you know, I do have, uh, a lot of people who are very supportive.
And the thing is that the people who recognize me, like one of the things
that's really been a big change in my life is I spent most of my life, you
I didn't want to have anything to do with the media or, or anything like that.
And then I got this job and, you know, a large part of it involves talking to large
numbers of people at public events, being on podcasts and all kinds of other things.
I'm not a very technological person, so I don't even know all the kinds
of things that I'm on or what they're supposed to be called, but, um, Um, if
you Google my name and chief firearms officer, you'll find lots of stuff there.
And so I have people come up to me all the time and say, are you, yes, I mean,
I was in, uh, Lethbridge last weekend for the, um, Fort Whoop Up rendezvous of the
Alberta black powder shooting association.
And um, I've crossed the parking lot to go to the restaurant to have a bite to eat.
And as I'm walking in, the guy says, Are you?
Yeah.
That's me.
Yeah.
I've been recognized on the street and, and, um, and, uh, many places.
So.
It's not something that I would have chosen, you know, uh, it's sort
of a cost that comes with the job.
I mean, some people would find it nice because it, it soothes their ego, you
know, that, oh yeah, people recognize me everywhere, but it means I gotta be
really good because, because, you know, I'm in the public eye all the time.
And Uh, so the people who recognize me are generally people who are supportive.
Um, I do get some people, even at gun shows, uh, who are, uh, less
supportive of not always of me.
Firearms per se, but of, um, well, why do they need that kind of firearm?
And you know, why, why do people need a handgun?
Why do they need a modern sporting rifle?
Why do you need that?
And, you know, I then work on converting them and pointing out, you know, I
get at one time, uh, the lever action repeating rifle was considered a
revolutionary increase in firepower.
Um, and so, you know, now it's considered a, you know, a very
sedate, uh, traditional kind of thing.
So, uh, I, I spend time, uh, to convince people that this is.
something that, you know, it's not, not so scary.
And, and if you, um, if they, if we let them get away with taking these
away, then the thing that you like next is going to be on the block.
Yeah.
So, um, I spent a fair bit of time, Uh, you know, at, at shows, because it's
not that there's a large number of them, but sometimes it needs a little work,
you know, um, but that's part of my job.
Like, basically I view my time, I have to sleep a certain number of
day, hours a day, but otherwise all my time is this job, you know, and.
So if it's, if it takes 15 minutes to convert a person, then 15 minutes,
it'll take if it takes half an hour, if it takes an hour, I just keep plugging
away at it one by one, you know, you, you make convert people to the cause,
or at least to being, uh, indifferent and another part of how I do that.
I think I've shown you that I, I use a lot of my own firearms and I have a lot of.
Very interesting historical pieces and I can comment on the history of them.
You know, this gun was was purchased by the Kingdom of Siam to equip their
officer corps and you know this kind of thing and so People then view
these things as in a different way.
They realize, yeah, there's a lot of history there.
Or I point out, you know, this one was owned by my, my grandfather, and
then my father, and then me, or my father, and my uncle, and then me.
And, you know, they realize that there's family history to it.
That, that many of them are historical artifacts.
from history writ large, not just my family and it changes people's perspective
on things and they recognize that, you know, like with the, with the modern
sporting rifle that, uh, modern sporting rifles that were covered by the order in
council, people don't realize how broadly.
That there were many other types of things that are by no means modern sporting
rifles or black rifles, whatever you want to call them that are covered by that.
And that's something that the federal government has repeatedly done is say,
Oh, we're banning this type of gun.
Oh, we're banning, you know, Saturday night specials, and then they enact a
law that actually covers a lot more.
And so, um, you know, that's a, uh, there should be some kind of honesty
and labeling law with respect to, with respect to laws, but you know, it's part
of my job to, uh, point these things out.
And, uh, you know, I, uh, when I went to Ottawa, I took pictures, they're
talking about the handgun transfer freeze when they were going to entrench
it in legislation through Bill C 21.
I took pictures of, you know, my Peter Soli reproduction of a Harpers Ferry
flintlock, uh, and I said, you know, and, and my cap and ball revolvers and,
uh, uh, which are modern production.
And I said, like, You realize that this handgun transfer freeze,
this is what you're banning.
This is pirate era technology.
And what did they say?
And they, they, well, a couple of them actually said, well,
like, can I keep these pictures?
So fortunately I had made numerous copies and I said, Oh, of course.
You know, um, but the, the.
The problem there is,
you know, a lot of things are decided in Ottawa by politics, not by rationality.
And, you know, I had people who would say, yeah, you know, you pointed
out good errors, good, good, you know, serious problems with this,
you've come up with good compromise solutions, nothing that I proposed.
I wasn't, you know, proposing open carry or, or something like that, you know,
which whether you like it or not, it's, it would be quite, you have to admit
that would be a radical idea in Canada.
Yeah.
I wasn't proposing anything like that.
I was saying, well, you know, instead of this Olympic exemption, you know, let
the chief firearms officer decide which organizations can write these letters or
something like little tweaks that could have made a big difference, but they
weren't willing to even consider that.
And that's what makes you realize.
that this has anybody who, uh, observes that should understand
then that it's not this, these laws are not based around public safety.
Right.
That might be the, it's not to say that in the whole complex of Bill C 21, there's
nothing that affected public safety.
Okay.
But that particular thing, um, how can you argue that banning this single
shot muzzle loading flintlock Is going to improve public safety that
saying that that can't be transferred to anybody and it's not prohibited.
It just means that you can't transfer it to anybody.
I mean, I'm fond of saying the last time somebody committed
a crime with one of these.
It was 1820 and the guy had a patch on one eye and a parrot on his shoulder,
you know, so, um, and then after doing it, he disappeared in a cloud of smoke.
Travis Bader: Well.
You know, well, part of me would say like, why, why would
they proceed with those things?
Would it be ignorance?
But clearly it can't be ignorance if they're being educated otherwise.
Is it, uh, is it ego?
Is it arrogance?
Is there a greater political, uh, motive behind
Teri Bryant: it?
Travis Bader: What?
Teri Bryant: So I'm hopeful that when the Senate faces this kind of
legislation again, um, that they will do the right thing and Uh, be willing to
write some of the injustices that have been, uh, perpetrated by, uh, Bill C
21 and some of the other measures that have been introduced over the years.
But you know, fundamentally, I mean, there are certain things
that need to be done right away.
You know, dropping the order in council, uh, dealing with Bill C
21 and the handgun transfer freeze.
Uh, but more fundamentally, we really do need to start again.
to, you know, start with a blank slate.
And I'm not saying that we get rid of all the laws and then reintroduce them.
I'm saying, you know, what the patchwork that we have now, where
we've got Band Aid on Band Aid on Band Aid, it's incomprehensible.
Okay.
And, uh, so, and laws should be clear, should be simple, should
be easy to administer, should be easy for people to understand.
You shouldn't need to have a doctorate in law in order to figure out, and
actually now the law is so convoluted that even if you get three doctors of
law, you'll get four opinions on what it's
Travis Bader: worth.
That's right.
Teri Bryant: Uh, so we really need to start again.
And, uh, after the, the positive aspect, I always, I'm a, I'm
a silver lining kind of gal.
And so the, the positive aspect of this is we've got experience now.
We know what will work, what won't work.
We can also look at what other countries have done and what
worked and didn't work there.
And we can just keep the core elements that.
Have been proven to work or where there's at least a reasonable, plausible,
logical case that they should work.
Sure.
And, uh, and get rid of the things that are only expensive,
ineffective, and expensive.
And undermine confidence in the system.
I mean, when we have a classification scheme, and I can show you
two guns that are identical, you couldn't tell them apart.
And one of them is restricted, and one of them is prohibited.
Or one of them is one category, and another is another category.
Then, you know, that undermines people's confidence.
People, if you want, the whole idea of laws is to prevent people
from doing things that they might otherwise do, that they might have
liked to do, but they realized, no, oh, I'm not supposed to do that.
Well, they're not likely to accept those kind of, they're less likely
to accept those kind of restrictions.
If those restrictions don't make any sense.
Travis Bader: I agree.
Yeah.
I, I, I'm a firm believer that if you spend any time out in the wild, you'll
realize that animals will take the least path of resistance and humans are animals.
We take the least path of resistance, the path of least resistance.
Uh, and if we're able to make it, uh, easy for the politicians to make
a decision, if we're easy, make it easy for the lawmakers to, to move
forward in a certain direction.
They're way more likely to move there.
And there's a couple of examples where I've, I've looked at, uh, different
provinces sort of leading the way in certain areas and other provinces
sort of copying their example.
One of them was, uh, Nova Scotia chief firearms officer was, uh, Introducing,
uh, restrictions and amendments.
I'm trying to think of what the word is on, on ranges, uh, conditions.
Thank you.
Uh, conditions on ranges and, uh, the new Brunswick CFO did a
similar thing to one of the ranges.
I think that was a Springfield range.
Springfield range says like, hold on, I don't get why we have these.
We've operated so long.
And in fact, these conditions that are being applied, they don't make sense.
They took him to court and the, uh, New Brunswick CFO says, well, I'm
just doing that because that's how the Nova Scotia CFO was doing it.
And that's sort of that, that normative process following
the path of least resistance.
Well, somebody else did it like that.
And the other one would be, um, in Ontario, uh, Daniel Belofsky,
he's, was a Silver Corp club member.
And the chief firearms officer, Chris Wyatt at the time says, no,
we're not going to issue you an authorization to transport, uh, until
you join a range in our province.
And he's like, I've looked through the regulations, I've
looked through everything.
I don't see anything where you even get the authority to ask for that.
Took them to court, uh, won, was appealed, lost, but the by product
was that they no longer had to ask for, um, uh, an authorization.
Uh, range membership or club membership in order to have your restricted
firearms license renewed and issued, or your, your ATT issued, I think was
more of the provincial purview there.
And what I learned through that one was it was, uh, at least what was
told to me that was being run as a bit of a test case to see how they could
bleed it out into other provinces.
So I see this normative process.
I see where the negative, uh, aspects of different policy are being just,
well, buddy to my left or right, and that's how they're doing it.
Are you seeing that sort of process in some of the positive aspects or
other provinces looking to Alberta and saying, hold on a second,
Terry makes a good point over here.
Maybe we should reevaluate.
Teri Bryant: Well, we have seen, uh, we have seen some of that because, um, You
know, for example, when they introduce the requirement that people that you,
that a seller validate the non restricted, uh, that the, they validate the, uh,
possession and acquisition license of a buyer who wants to acquire a non
restricted firearm from them, or, or, you know, Transfer in any way, if you're
giving it to somebody, you're supposed to validate that their PAL is correct.
It's one of those ideas that doesn't sound all that bad in principle,
but the way they did it meant that it was, uh, pretty much impossible
to do it at many gun shows.
And so we worked together with our federal partners in the registry to
obtain these reference numbers for people.
And, uh, there has been.
Some element of, uh, spread of an idea like that.
Uh, it's, it's not challenging anything.
Like we're trying to say, like, if you want people to comply with this,
let's, let's make it easy or at the very least possible for them to comply.
Yeah.
And you know, that's the, the whole approach that we try and take is.
To, uh, facilitate people's compliance.
Okay.
Like we're not law enforcement, right?
We're not the ones who are going to go out and say, Oh, you're not doing that.
We're going to lay a charge against you.
That's not our role.
Okay.
Our role is to administer the licensing scheme and the authorizations and so on.
And to encourage compliance with that, um, and encouraging compliance might be as
simple as, you know, another example from, from gun shows is people are supposed to
secure their guns when they're on display.
And so I don't go up and pound a table and say, Hey, that gun isn't secured.
I get a supply of free locks from the federal government.
They're free in a sense, a lot of people don't like the idea of
anything for the government is free, but, uh, we obtain them without them
charging us so we can pass them on to somebody else without charging.
Right.
And in that sense, at least people are getting something back for all
the tax dollars they send to Ottawa.
But you know, uh, instead of saying, Hey, you need to, to fix this situation.
I go up to him and say, Hey, I got a bunch of trigger locks.
Would you like some, you know?
Uh, that gets a better reaction from people because people don't
like to be told what to do.
People don't like to be, to have, uh, someone suggesting
that they're doing things wrong.
Um, but if you can offer them something in a graceful fashion, Then that helps
and, and it also encourages, you know, sometimes people come to me and they
say, um, if I do this, will this comply?
Is this enough?
And my reaction is, well, first of all, I'm not a lawyer, so I
can't give you legal advice, right?
Um, I can tell you what the law says.
Uh, but I'm not a lawyer.
My word, just because I say it, it doesn't mean that it's the law.
Okay.
But, um, What I can say is, here's what the law is.
It kind of looks like that would maybe meet the law.
Is that all you really want to do?
Travis Bader: Just bare minimum.
Teri Bryant: Yeah.
So, I mean, when I go out driving, my, when I do a lot of driving, okay?
My goal is not simply to avoid committing vehicular homicide, okay?
That might be complying with the law, okay?
But I, I've set my standard a little higher than that, okay?
And I don't maybe always meet it, but I want to be, you know, a safe, courteous
driver and, you know, let people in and, you know, uh, this kind of thing.
And so, If we want to create a positive image of ourselves as a
misunderstood minority, then it helps if we go above and beyond, you know?
And so does that meet legal minimum?
Well, you know, I'm not a lawyer, but it, Uh, probably meets the legal
minimum, but I'd suggest you do more, you know, and, uh, and so that's why,
you know, when you were talking about, about getting a club membership, right,
there's not, it doesn't say in the law that you have to have a club membership.
That's right.
Okay.
What it says is that a firearms officer.
Can't issue this to you without, uh, unless they are satisfied
that you are acquiring it for the purpose that you state.
Okay.
The easiest way to satisfy people that you want a gun for a target practice
is if you belong to a range where you, you would go to do target practice.
It's not the only way.
There are other, other possibilities.
You know, I always tell people, well, no, we don't legally require that.
It's not an absolute mandate.
It will be the first question if we have to ask you, uh, because the way the
federal government has set things up now, a lot of applications are held up for
what we call confirmation of purpose.
Right?
So we will have to ask you that we have to ask because it says
we can't do this unless we're satisfied that this is the case.
Bye.
Um, you know, we, we aren't, uh, requiring this, but I always tell
people, I would strongly suggest that everybody belong to at least one range.
I belong to three.
Okay.
Even though I hardly get a chance to get out and shoot now
because I work every weekend.
But um, the reason for that is it's very simple.
Our entire infrastructure is under attack, like with the loss
of handgun transfers, the number of handgun owners ratchets down.
Then fewer people say, well, if I'm not shooting my handguns, uh, I don't,
why do I need to belong to a range?
So some ranges have suffered significant losses in membership.
That's exactly what the feds want.
Right.
Okay.
And so, uh, we need to continue to support our infrastructure.
And I made this point when I was arguing against Bill C 21 and its pernicious
effects on public safety, because I said, like, you know, ranges aren't
only the place where firearms owners go.
To shoot their guns in many places, that's where, like your, uh, armored
car guards go where your police go, where, you know, people who, uh, you
know, wildlife officers and so on, they need to have a place to shoot.
And right now, I mean, Alberta is a very big place.
You don't realize how big it is.
Until you start driving around here.
And even though I said, like, I've been up as far as Fort Mac, there's a whole bunch
of Alberta that's further North than that.
Including a couple of ranges that are in the very far North, almost
to the Northwest territories.
And so I'm, and I hope to get there one day.
Cause I want to visit everything.
I want to visit every business.
I want to visit every range.
I want to have, I want to be in places where everybody at least has a chance.
If they want to talk to me, they can come and talk to me.
Okay.
Uh, but, um, you know, those, um, uh, many places, the police
don't have a range locally.
Like they, for their annual qualification, they may have to travel hours and
hours and hours to go somewhere.
So they'll use the local range.
Well, if the local range has to close down because they don't have
enough members, then that's going to negatively affect public safety.
It will.
Yes.
And.
Uh, because I don't know about you, but anybody that is officially
carrying a gun, I want them to be as proficient as possible.
Better believe it.
And so, you know, we need to ensure that there are.
Um, that these ranges stay open and, uh, it's a small, uh, cost, you know, I
mean, uh, getting an associate membership or, uh, you know, there are many
rural, there's still rural, um, ranges.
Some of them where it's under a hundred dollars, you know, uh, not a lot of
them now because costs go up, but, but you know, there are, uh, if we
don't support those ranges, it's going to come back to haunt us because.
The whole model of firearms ownership in Canada, right?
Like it or not is based around sporting use.
And if there's no place where people can go and use them for sport, then
people would say, why do you have them?
Right.
And then they come for you.
Right.
So, you know, it's really important that we support ranges.
And so I always tell people, we don't legally require it.
We encourage it.
And part of the reason why is.
It's your way of helping to support the future of firearms ownership in Canada.
That's a good point.
Travis Bader: That's a good point.
You brought up a couple of things here.
One of them is about going above and beyond and it brings to mind, uh,
one of our instructors, he uses the acronym CYA and he's like, ask the
class, you know what that stands for?
And I was like, oh yeah, yeah.
And he says, can you articulate?
Right?
Oh, okay.
If you're pulled over, can you articulate?
If you had to stand in front of a trier of fact, can you easily articulate?
And the answer is you have to do a song and dance and break
out the nitty gritty fine print.
Well, maybe, maybe it's going to be a lot easier if you go above and beyond.
It's easy to articulate.
Teri Bryant: And, and, uh, you know, it's also, people, people are sometimes
critical because not everybody who's responsible for, uh, or aspects of,
uh, the firearms control system, whether it's the regulatory part or
the enforcement part, not everyone is an expert in all of these things.
Right.
And, um, you know, most of us, because of our pattern of our past, our pattern
of usage and our interests, we tend to know a lot about a few things and not
always a whole lot about other things.
Right.
And, um, you know, I know more about firearms than most people do, but there
are areas about firearms that I don't know anything about and, or very little.
Uh, uh, and so that's one of the reasons also why I go to events so that I can
learn more about it and I can see how things get done and, um, you know, see
how people use things in competitions.
And, um, yeah.
educate myself.
So, you know, education isn't a, is education is de facto, it's a process,
you know, and so, uh, I'm continually learning new things all the time about,
um, you know, how, you know, when I was at the black powder shooting association,
how do people deal with, uh, misfires or hang fires and things like that.
And, you know, Uh, in a practical sense, not, not theoretically, but
seeing exactly what they do and what tools they use and so on and so forth.
It helps me to understand things.
When will I use that?
I don't know, but it's all part of my toolkit, you know?
And then, uh, you know, it's part of that, I guess that's part of the reason why you
go to Canadian Tire and they, they sell you a kit that has 87 wrenches in it.
And am I ever going to need a six millimeter wrench?
I don't know, but I'll have one for the day when it, but I want it.
Travis Bader: Um, that, that learning process, you know, there.
As I've, I've been doing this since about 94, started teaching in 94,
the basic firearm safety course, when they came out, I incorporated
Silvercore in 03 and started the, the firearms business license.
Before that I had a sole proprietorship Silvercore Gunworks, and I was doing
repair and maintenance, extended work for law enforcement and armored car companies.
And then every Joe blow and coming in with a, 100 gun.
They bought it a gun show that they wanted to shoot like a thousand dollar gun,
but they only wanted to spend 50 bucks, but, but been doing it for a little bit.
And there's been a number of different interesting learning pieces, one of them.
Um, so I've been asked for both Crown as well as defense side to opine on different
firearms or weapons related issues.
And they go through the process and qualify you as a subject matter
expert for that case on that day for that one particular area.
And then even if you meet that qualification, then it's how much weight's
going to be ascribed to this opinion.
Um.
There was one that was, uh, ease of conversion.
There was a firearm that was being imported and they got the AOK and the
firearms program turned around and says, no, it's easy to convert full auto.
And so I was asked to come in and take a look at this guy.
And I looked at it and within about a minute of taking it apart and looking
at how to operate it, I figured out how you can make this thing go full auto.
And so my testimony was, cause you're not an expert for the person who's hiring you.
You're an expert for the court to provide them with the best possible decision.
My expert testimony was, it's pretty damn easy to convert, right?
However, a lot of the things that are being said about where it's
being made, how it's being put together, and that's completely
false and here's the information that I can show it to you, right?
As I testified first, I get to watch a second, the, uh, firearms
program expert testify and it's.
I've actually testified, um, he's been on a different side on other
issues and I watch him and the only thing I could come to mind was he's
lying, he's lying through his teeth.
He he's can't be that ignorant to what the facts are and if he had only heard my
testimony, he wouldn't have had to lie.
Right.
Um, and so I was getting all worked up and looking like, how can
somebody go up there and do this?
And at the end of the day, what I learned was that the recourse for this
decision that was being made on the firearm is similar to the recourse for
decisions for a lot of firearms issues.
And it was, I think they called it a judicial review.
And it doesn't review whether or not the end outcome, the end conclusion that the,
um, in this case, the firearms program came to doesn't review whether that was
the right decision or wrong decision.
It reviews if they followed the proper steps to get to that decision.
So that was a big, uh, learning moment for me, even if, you know, a hundred
percent, you're right on one thing.
And in that particular instance, I agree.
It was, it was easy to convert.
I mean, it met the definition, but even if.
Even if, uh, you are a hundred percent right.
And the opposing side comes up with something that, you know, to be a
hundred percent wrong, your recourse legally on that is rather constrained.
And if they can prove that they follow all the right steps to get there, that
final decision stands in that that leads into a, um, a moratorium that
was put on, on instructors in British Columbia, making new instructors.
And I didn't think that was right.
Other instructor says, Travis, what are you doing?
This is a gold mine.
I mean, why would you want more instructors out here?
And I said, I don't look at it like that.
This isn't, this isn't my main source of income.
I'm more diverse in this.
And I don't like the idea of limiting legal access to firearms and the
safety training and all the rest.
I know what I'm going to do.
I'm going to hire a lawyer and I'm going to challenge this moratorium.
Lawyer turns around and looks at it and says, okay, got your money here.
But, um, just to let you know, I've done some research and there actually
isn't a legal framework to act, compel.
A firearms officer or chief firearms officer to make new instructors, uh,
in the way that there would be a legal framework for other civil servants.
Uh, the approach that we're taking on this one is off.
We'll be lucky if they don't see costs, right?
Uh, it was dropped without costs.
And I was mentioning this to somebody I know who's in the media and.
He's like, like, why are you pursuing it?
I said, this is a public safety thing.
If this is supposed to be safety training and it's supposed to help the
general public, how can they limit this?
He's like, I'll, I'll give him a phone call.
So here's that learning process.
He phoned up on the Friday, by Monday, the firearms program said, we've decided to
change our approach and we're opening up the, um, uh, we're, we're, uh, stopping
the moratorium on, uh, instructors.
We're going to make some new instructors.
So what I'm trying to get across in this sort of long winded thing here is
there's a lot of people in the firearms community that might not actually
realize the amount of agency that they have, if they're able to show the easy
path and be vocal in a positive way.
Uh, towards the issues that they're experiencing.
If they say, that's it, we're going to court.
I got deep pockets and we're going after this.
You're, you're probably looking at a losing prospect, but if you take an
approach of raising public attention towards these matters, I've found by
and large, using that approach has, um, pressured a positive outcome.
Teri Bryant: Well, I mean, all of these issues, I, you know, we, we need to
kind of follow multi pronged strategies.
Okay.
And part of the thing you, you touched on when you were talking about the
number of instructors and, and that sort of thing, every province deals
with the whole issue of instructors.
I'm the one who has to actually sign people's.
Certificates saying that they're, they're do it, but we have a, a partner, uh,
that does that right at the moment.
They're the ones who, who, well, for quite a few years,
actually, not just this moment.
Yep.
They're the ones who've done it for quite a long time.
And we work closely with them on that.
Um, and, um, Um, so other provinces do it differently.
They have one of the people in the firearms office who is, uh, responsible
for managing the instructors.
We have a couple of our, our firearms officers who are
qualified instructors here as well.
Um, so, but the thing is, uh,
having, you know, uh, one prong of our strategy has to
be to increase our numbers.
And you can't become a legal firearms owner unless you can take the course.
Right.
So, we've got to make sure that that course Is available to everybody.
So in the province of Alberta, it has to be available to everybody from the U.
S.
Border to the Northwest territories from B.
C.
to Saskatchewan.
It has to be available to you whether you're old, young.
Uh, whether you, uh, are living with a disability, whether you, uh, are
a newcomer or someone who's long established, whether you're, uh,
indigenous, whether we want to make sure that that's available to everyone so
that everyone, um, has the ability to join us in our, uh, in our struggles.
And that I think is very important, uh, because a lot of people have the.
Uh, have the mistaken idea that, uh, firearms owners are just a
bunch of angry old white guys.
Travis Bader: Sure.
Teri Bryant: Okay.
Travis Bader: Gouge is what I've heard.
Grumpy old white dudes.
Teri Bryant: So, But the thing is, uh, and you know, we may have an
element of that, I can't deny in our, in our, uh, cadre, but, um, you know,
many of like many of my firearms officers are firearms enthusiasts.
I have a couple of the women who work here as firearms officers
who are very avid hunters.
And, uh, and, uh, you know, we have, when I.
Uh, I have people from all different communities, from the South Asian
community, Filipino community, you know, Chinese Canadians and,
uh, Indigenous peoples and, uh, of all the different groups.
Yeah.
And, you know, it's, and young and old.
Um, so at the black powder event, there was, you know, uh, a lot
of people who were seventies, eighties, even one in their nineties.
Um, but there were also a couple of teenagers and they're, it
was very interesting because you know what the other hobby
of these two teenage ladies was?
What?
Roller derby.
Oh, I love it.
I love it.
Yeah.
I didn't even know they still did roller derby, but they were
showing me pictures of, of, of that.
That could be a
Travis Bader: brutal sport.
Teri Bryant: Yeah.
Well, um, It's, uh, but it shows the diversity and that's what we need
to, uh, you know, we need people to understand and it will help us.
When we go to talk to different groups, if people understand that diversity,
that it isn't just a bunch of, uh, angry old white guys from rural areas
that we've got young urban women, that we've got people from all different
ethnic, racial, religious groups that are part of that firearms community.
And, um, that opens people's minds, oh, oh, I didn't realize that you, you were
just like everybody else except that you have this, uh, particular interest.
And so the more we can expand our numbers and the more we can, uh,
expand into groups that were not perhaps traditionally strongly inclined
towards firearms ownership, the stronger our cause is going to be.
Travis Bader: So I've always looked at the, uh, firearms program.
You brought this up before that you guys aren't the enforcement body, the firearms
program is, but they're the ones that, uh, help with the, as I've looked at
them as facilitators, essentially, how do you get you from point A to point B?
And for a number of years dealing with the BC CFO's office and dealing with other
provinces, they've That, that really was a way it's like, Hey, I'd like to do this.
And I want to open up a business that does this.
How do I do that?
Can you guide me through it?
And, um, at some point things kind of changed and it looks like it's
swinging back again, but things changed to a point where it was rather
than being the facilitator, it was a person who tells you, no, right.
Um, I'd like to do this.
Well, you can't.
Well, let, let me take a look at your business plan first
and nope, doesn't meet it.
Well, hold on a second.
Shouldn't it be the other way around?
Shouldn't you say in order to get there, your business
plan has to have these steps.
If you got that great, fantastic.
If it doesn't, and I've, I've looked at that in like ATC issuance, I've
looked at that in business, um, conditions and, and licensing.
Uh, In talking with you and looking around the office and seeing where
you're going here, it looks like you're taking a very grassroots
approach and, uh, a facilitating approach to helping people get forward.
I, I'm wondering, is that, is that the trend within the General
Firearms program to turn around and say, look, how do we facilitate?
'cause I was told by some past officers that on some issues.
Uh, they had a mandate to deny, to do what they could.
ATCs is one of them.
I was told we've got a mandate to try and limit that.
The other one was a business licenses in the film industry.
We've got a mandate to try and crack down and not allow people to get those.
Um, have you heard of those mandates?
Have you seen a shift towards how do we facilitate more?
Teri Bryant: Um, well, first of all, the one place that I can definitely speak
to is here and, you know, our approach like with ranges, for example, what
we, what we say is it was, I'm stealing a line that was come up with by, by
our senior range firearms officer.
Uh, and, uh, you know, you want to have a safe place to shoot.
We want to give you a safe place to shoot, you know?
So, and that means, you know, we have a certain amount of expertise in making
sure that, you Um, certain risks that you might not have thought of are covered off.
Sure.
Okay.
So, um, because we have the benefit, and this is part of the benefit of being
part of the whole Canadian firearms program, we've got the experience
of everything that's happened all across the country for decades.
Okay.
So, you know, we try and take that facilitative approach and it pays
off, you know, um, just past weekend when I mentioned I was at this black
powder rendezvous, uh, one of the, one Participants there came up to
me and said, well, I want to start a gun show in such and such a place.
Where do, where, uh, how do I do that?
And so I said, well, here's my, uh, contact information, contact me.
I'll put you an officer in touch with you, but here's a couple of key things that you
want to think about, you know, security and, and, uh, different issues like that.
And some practical things, you know, like, Uh, get yourself a, a roll of
black plastic bags so that people aren't walking out across a parking lot with
a naked gun to quote a movie, you know, Leslie Nielsen, that sort of thing.
So, you know, uh, and, and so I'm hoping that he's going to follow through on
that and we'll have another gun show, um, because the more places there are where
people can be socialized into the law abiding, responsible firearms culture.
The better off not only we will be, but the entire society will be.
And so, you know, that's kind of the, the approach that we have taken.
I think that in other provinces, a lot of times it depends on Every province
has its own kind of unique animal.
Um, there are certain efforts, um, you know, when we meet at, um, there's,
there are a couple of meetings of chief firearms officers each year.
Um, and they're, they often will attempt to develop a consensus around what we, how
we should do with, deal with something.
Um, and, uh, you know, my response to that has, has generally been that,
Uh, that seems to make sense to us.
We'll probably do that, but I'm not going to be, not going to bind my hands.
Right.
Okay?
Because if there's a situation that comes up where that doesn't work, I'm
not going to be bound by, uh, you know, by some group of people who, you know,
Uh, sat around a table, uh, you know, at three o'clock in the afternoon, we're
looking at their watches and decided no.
Yeah.
Uh, so, uh, I'm not suggesting there's anything wrong with that,
with how that body of, of people is deliberating, but, uh, well, the
Travis Bader: intentions are, are, you know, are good.
I
Teri Bryant: mean, uh, one of the things that really bothers me, so, you know,
there's a, uh, I just went through the roof when I saw this at first.
Was, um, you know, the commissioner's report on firearms.
And a couple of years ago there was a line and it might still be there.
I don't know.
I have, I, I, I look at the tables of numbers.
I guess I'm a numbers person.
I don't read all the footnotes, but it said that the principles of the
Canadian firearms program included public safety and standardization.
And, you know, like, and there were about three or four of them, but
putting standardization on a, In the same level as public safety, you know,
I, I tend to look, think of it more as I would like to see more ability
for, uh, the firearms officers across the country to reflect their, uh,
the peculiarities of that province.
Okay.
Uh, and, uh, So,
if that, that has another benefit to the whole country, that if we come up
with a good idea here in Alberta, and we show that it works, first of all,
we need to have the freedom to do that.
Okay.
But if we have that freedom, and we do something different, and we show that that
works, then Then it's like what they call a natural laboratory, you know, we can,
we can then say, Hey, I know you guys are doing it differently, but we did it this
way and look at the great results we got.
Right.
And so, you know, uh, talking about our outreach program, uh, I did a
presentation at the, uh, one of the recent, uh, chief firearms officers
meetings about our outreach program, talking about the benefits that we get.
from being out there and talking to people and, um, you know,
others would like to do that.
There's a lot of them there.
In many cases, it's not, it comes down to the, you know, the hard
matter of a budget, you know, like if, if you're in one of the smaller
provinces that doesn't have much money and, uh, you're not viewed as a high
political priority, um, They don't give you any money, and then you can't
go out and be at gun shows, you know?
Um, here in, here in Alberta, people have recognized that this is an area where we
can take the lead in policy, that it's an important area to, um, you know, I think
there's a widespread political consensus.
That, uh, this is an area that is of particularly critical importance
in Alberta to our, uh, our culture, our way of life, our traditions,
um, and, uh, and our economy.
You know, I've, I've touched on that a couple of times, but, you know,
the, the economic aspect is quite important and it's not just, you The
jobs of people who are working in gun shops or at a, at a commercial range
or something, but you know, the health of our agricultural industry and our,
you know, whether it's ranching or farming, um, you know, and, uh, forestry.
And then there's the whole, you know, um, tourism and outfitting, uh, aspect of it.
There's a big economic footprint.
And, you know, if, if there's a, an area.
Where somebody has been raising livestock for 150 years and suddenly they're
no longer allowed to defend their livestock against predatory animals,
and they have to abandon their farm.
That's an economic loss.
It's also a huge loss to the traditions of our province.
Which are, you know, have their origins in those kinds of industries.
It's a huge loss to that family, you know, imagine you've got a, had a family
ranch that's been there for 150 years and it has to be wound up because of some
misguided, uh, edict coming out of Ottawa.
Um, you know, we really need to, um, to emphasize the economic impact
of some of these things as well.
And, uh, fortunately here in Alberta, that's recognized, you know, we have
a provincial government that is very keenly attuned to, uh, the different
aspects of, uh, our province, which have, I mean, increasingly we do have,
you know, high tech people in this building that we're in, you know,
is, uh, is high tech, uh, Uh, place.
There's a lots of high tech businesses here, but, uh, Geographically, a
very large part of the province is, um, reliant on Agriculture
resource industries, whether it's forestry or mining or whatever.
Uh, who knows?
I mean, even if you I don't really know how I'm not an expert on things like solar
energy, but you know, you never know.
They if we Have an area where there's a big, uh, what do they call them?
Solar, solar power farm.
Travis Bader: Yeah.
Um, the birds coming through,
Teri Bryant: they may, they may have, uh, uh, the bears might
like that, that area or something.
And they need maintenance.
So people have to be safe.
Yeah.
Um, so there's a, there's a, Uh, a wide range of areas where, uh,
the firearms issue is of critical economic importance to Alberta.
And I would, you know, I think our, um, that's recognized
by the current government.
Uh, I would hope that at some point it would be, you know, my, my hope
is at both the provincial and federal level that eventually the firearms
issue would not be a political issue.
Public safety should not be a political issue.
Everybody wants public safety.
And if we establish a system that is based on data, on science, on
mutual understanding, and developing cultures of respect, uh, from citizens
between each other and between citizens and government, then Uh,
this should not be a political issue.
I mean, when we need changes in rule, in rules, we may need to have
a vote by politicians, but there should be consensus on these things.
And uh, you know, I would be, uh, if there are politicians, federal, provincial,
municipal, who want to be educated, uh, on this to really understand what's
going on, um, you know, political issues.
I'm here.
Uh, I'm, I'm willing to meet with people to people to understand.
And I think part of the reason why is I'm very proud of what we're doing.
I'm proud of the work of my people here.
So whether it's the day to day, you know, decisions that they make on renewing or
granting firearms licenses, or whether it's the outreach that my people are
doing, um, I'm very proud of what they do.
And I'm proud of the initiatives that we're coming up with
to address, uh, issues like.
Firearms, um, uh, firearms misuse in domestic violence or mental
health issues or things like that.
Uh, we want to face those issues head on and develop realistic, uh, workable
data based solutions to those problems.
And when we do that here in Alberta, then I'm going to be preaching
those, uh, as we develop and get, get more and more ideas there.
I'll be out preaching to have those adopted all across the country because
our goal is to have public safety and a thriving firearms community.
And those two are not just compatible, they're mutually
complimentary and reinforcing.
Travis Bader: A hundred percent.
Teri Bryant: Do you want to hear some questions
Travis Bader: from the public?
I'm always willing to listen.
Let's see what we got here.
What are the trends, vibes relating to ATCs, PAL, hunting,
sport shooting, industry?
It's a pretty broad question.
Do you see any trends, uh, emerging in the, uh, in the industry
or in the firearms community?
Well, I see both troubling
Teri Bryant: and
Travis Bader: promising
Teri Bryant: trends.
Travis Bader: Okay.
Teri Bryant: And, uh, the troubling trend that I see is, uh, Um, you know,
a lot of people, they get discouraged because right now the, there's been
a number of completely unjustified attacks on the firearms community
and it just wears people down.
Okay.
Um, and people say, Oh, should I stay in business?
Should I keep my guns?
Should I give up hunting?
You know, different things like that.
And on the other side though, I personally, I'm, you know, maybe
it's cause I'm a half glass, a glass half full kind of a person.
But I see tremendous opportunity because.
The failure of many of these, uh, misguided proposals is becoming
increasingly evident, and, uh, there's a reasonable probability That after the
next election, uh, Ottawa might become more amenable to listening to reason.
And, uh, so I'm actually, uh, very positive.
I try to encourage people to, uh, give them hope.
Uh, I try to encourage people to write out this rough patch.
Because there's a better day ahead.
I
Travis Bader: like that.
Uh, is your work different today from when you started?
And if so, how?
Teri Bryant: Um, well, we are kind of at an inflection point now because
when we started, we were scrambling.
Okay.
When I took over the office, I, on September, I was only hired like a
couple of weeks before the office opened.
Uh, I was not, although I was I was a member of the Alberta
Firearms Advisory Committee.
I was part of the Uh, recommendation to, to take over the office
provincially, but then I wasn't involved in the lead up to that.
Uh, and so I had no idea what I was getting into.
It was like, you know, diving blindfolded off a platform and not knowing whether
it's 600 feet down onto solid concrete or six inches down into a nice soft
mattress, what's it going to be?
It's a lot closer to 600 feet down to concrete.
But when we started off, you know, we were, we were scrambling.
We had, uh, you know, an office that had furniture, but not much else.
Uh, I had half a dozen people with me the first day and in very short order,
we got ourselves up and running, figured out what needed to be done that enabled
us to, uh, apply for, uh, the, the funding that we needed to take over
more of the operations from Miramichi.
Um, because I think things are best done close to the people, like
this is an information business.
All the information is here.
Yes.
So we are, we're now at kind of an inflection point because
we're almost fully staffed.
And, uh, those staff now we're in the intensive training phase so that over
the next number of months, we'll be able to take over most of the work
that Miramichi does for Alberta.
Um, and do that here.
Uh, I've always said that this made sense because I'm responsible for the
administration of the Canadian firearms program in Alberta, but I didn't have
control over most of it because most of it was being done in Miramichi.
And I had a certain, in theory, you could say I had control of it because
for the people in Miramichi, uh, who, and I, when I've met some of them, they're
dedicated, great folks that work hard.
But.
Um, I have no idea what's going on because I would have to sign a
designation order saying that, you know, Bill Smith or, uh, Jasbir Singh
or whoever is, is, uh, authorized to act on behalf of, uh, Alberta.
But then I had no idea of what they were doing.
And so by having everything here.
We will know.
And then, you know, I, I meet people, as I mentioned, I meet people all the time.
I'm arm's length away from them.
I'm dealing directly with them.
I want to be able to tell them that I will fix their problem and be able to
say, okay, uh, you know, Bill or Mary or whoever fixed this person's problem
and can't do that if they're 3000 miles away and I don't know what's going on.
So, um, we're at that inflection point now where we've.
Achieved our critical mass.
There's a couple of key hires that we're still doing.
We need some training, but over the next little while we will
really be hitting our stride.
So it's like we've been doing all the training and now we're
going to be in the Olympics.
The Olympics are just a couple of months away and then we'll be able to really Hit
our stride and, you know, I'm, I'm proud of how we've dealt with the challenges
up to now, but I'm extremely excited by how we're going to deal with the The
expanded opportunities that achieving, uh, our full maturity will bring.
I like that.
Travis Bader: I have my own questions, but I'm going to save those for after.
Uh, I'm going to go through the ones to the public here.
Um, what's the latest on the handgun confiscations post bill C 21.
How did the seizures actually happen after a handgun owner dies?
Who gets a letter?
Who goes to collect the gear?
How much of a priority is this?
Teri Bryant: So, um, first of all, uh, just.
I'm sure many of your listeners would already know, but, um, there is no
specific confiscation plan the same way that there is supposed to be one
for the Order and Council firearms.
Right.
Okay.
Um, and I say supposed to be one because I haven't seen much evidence
of there being a concrete plan.
Um, but anyway, um, I think that what that question is, uh, designed about is
what happens to guns when somebody dies?
What happens to handguns when somebody dies?
So right now the formal options for someone are very limited because, uh,
you could sell them to a business, but most businesses don't need more handguns.
um, you could sell 'em to an exempt individual, but there's
only a handful of those.
Mm.
Um, you could have them deactivated, but that's basically destroying their value.
Mm-Hmm.
. And, um, and I mean, I personally, I hate to see that.
So, um, you know, I, I actually have a little sign that I put.
When I do have a couple of deactivated guns in my collection, they were
deactivated before I got them.
I wasn't responsible for their deactivation.
But my little sign says, in order to comply with Canada's barbaric
laws requiring the desecration of precious historical artifacts, sadly,
this firearm has been deactivated.
Yes.
You know, so there's that.
You could just surrender them and have them destroyed.
None of those are reasonable options.
None of the things that, uh.
Federal government says our options are really options, you know, um, but,
uh, and I can't counsel people as I, since I'm not a lawyer, I can't counsel
people on exactly what they should do.
However, I would point out that it's our understanding.
That, uh, the executor of an estate has the reasonable period of time to
deal with the resolution of the estate.
And a reasonable period of time is not well defined in law,
but it's not weeks or days.
It's probably measured in years.
And I think there is a reasonably good chance that after the next election,
this will become significantly less of a problem than it is now.
Travis Bader: I agree.
I agree.
What about exporting is exporting in the car?
Yes.
Uh,
Teri Bryant: it's, it's possible.
Um, the problem is that most guns aren't worth enough, you know,
like if it costs you, there are many companies that do this.
Okay.
And I'm not trying to undercut their business or anything, but if it costs
you 300 to ship a gun out of the country and the guns worth 400, um, You
know, how much of an option is that?
So the federal government is fond of saying, Oh, you've got all these options.
Here's like your five option.
Well, that's like saying, well, you can cut off your hand or you can cut
off your foot or you cut off your nose or you can cut off your ear.
None of those are really options that I want to entertain.
Travis Bader: Right.
I agree.
That's a good way to put it.
Uh, what, what's the latest on the rifle and shot shotgun confiscations
may 2020 OAC has a federal department of public safety been in contact?
Is the plan advancing or stalled?
Um, what's Alberta's position?
Teri Bryant: Okay.
So, uh, first of all, Alberta's position from the very outset and
not just my position or not just our office's position, but our provincial
government's position as, uh, as articulated by, uh, cabinet members.
Has been, um, that we are absolutely opposed to this because it's a
violation of people's property rights and it is a Completely useless waste
of valuable taxpayer resources.
Okay.
Now somebody, when they watch this, they'll probably say, well, but property
rights aren't protected in Canada.
Well, maybe not, but, uh, they're not, they're not well protected in
Canada, but, uh, some people would say, are you really violating them?
But personally, I don't believe that governments give us rights.
I agree to me, depending on whether you're religious or not.
Your rights are either God given or innate right governments can
recognize them or protect them But they don't give you rights.
Okay, but that's a bit of a philosophical You know digression
so we've always been very strongly opposed to this And, uh, that has
played itself out in a number of ways.
So, for example, uh, a previous Minister of Justice and Solicitor General, um,
issued, uh, I'm not sure what they're called, protocols or something like
that, indicating that no provincial resources were to be used, no provincially
funded resources were to be used.
And, and things like that.
So that has limited the options for the implementation of this program.
But it is, it is not considered legally legitimate for the province to, um,
we can't obviate a law.
We can't say this law is invalid here.
Okay.
That's, uh, but it doesn't mean we have to help.
And so that's what these protocols, uh, help to do.
Also.
Okay.
It's my responsibility as, uh, Chief Firearms Officer, and particularly under
the Alberta Firearms Act, to ensure that anything that is done is done safely.
And so, Uh, we have the power to regulate seizure agents.
There's a fancy legal definition, but basically that would be anybody
who is involved in some kind of confiscation program like this.
Um, we have the power to regulate them to ensure that whatever
activities they conduct are conducted in a, uh, lawful and safe manner.
and, um, you know, my Sometimes my federal counterparts say, well,
you know, like surely what we're going to do it in a safe way.
That's, you know, why would you need to have the power to regulate that?
But then they came up with the idea of collecting them in, in post offices
that, that have locks that a six years, six year old could, could break through.
And so, you know, it is an important thing.
Um, and we can't, we can't say that, no, you can't do this.
Yeah.
But we can say that if you're going to do this, we're going to make sure
that Albertans get treated fairly, and we're going to make sure that
the way you do it doesn't, uh, expose Albertans to undue, undue risk.
And fortunately, I think, uh, they have not yet figured out a way to do
it that Uh, would meet even minimal public safety, uh, requirements.
So the way I see things playing out, I don't have a crystal ball, um, neither
the pre prime federal prime minister, nor the, any of their cabinet, uh,
whisper little nothings into my ear.
Um, but the way I see it playing out is that I think it's likely that there'll
be, uh, By the time of the next election, they'll probably be able to do something
on the collection of business inventories, because there are many businesses that
have been sorely hurt by having to maintain stocks that they can't sell.
You know, they're paying interest on money for years.
Interest rates have been high, and so that's been a burden for them.
But in, and for many businesses, not all of them, but for many businesses,
it's inventory, you know, uh, but.
Individuals, it's a whole different thing because we are
much more attached to our stuff.
The things I have are not just inventory to me.
They are historical artifacts.
They're, uh, treasured heirlooms.
Uh, they are, uh, they have a significance that goes well
beyond their monetary value.
And so, um, we, uh, want to make sure that anything that the, the feds
do, they do in a Uh, a safe manner.
They haven't come up with a way to do that, but I think that, uh, I don't
think they'll be able to make much progress by the next election on actually
collecting them from individuals.
I agree.
Um, and I, in some respects, and here I'm going into, you know, Uh, I'm not a, I'm
also, I get, give lots of, of caveats.
I'm not a political analyst.
Okay.
I'm not, uh, uh, I don't have a doctorate in political science.
Um, but I would think that it, there's a certain confluence of interest because
it probably makes sense for them to not complete it by the time of the next
election because it will be troublesome.
It will cause friction and, uh, uh, Negative publicity, if they try to push
it by the time of the next election.
Travis Bader: Yeah.
Here's one from a business owner and he says, one thing that would be really good
as an API or API access to PALS so that we can auto verify when we ship regulated
items, has there been any chat that you've heard of, of implementing sort of APIs
to, um, to cross check people's licenses so that businesses can be compliant?
Teri Bryant: Well, businesses have access to a system for verifying
that people's PALs are valid now.
I mean.
But it's not a
Travis Bader: application protocol interface or whatever they think.
I don't understand that technology.
Fair enough.
It's something that'll, uh, allows the backend to talk without the,
without a human having to be on the front end searching it.
Teri Bryant: I have not seen anything in their plans.
Um, and we do get updates on things, but they are expanding the capability.
So they're expanding the capabilities of automation in the system all the time.
Like you can now apply for your pal online and many other
things you can apply online.
Um, but on the other hand, anything that would make it possible to, to, um,
Make it easier on the firearms community
isn't always, I mean, some of these things, I mean, it is, it does make it
easier when people can apply for PALS.
The specific objective of making life easier isn't necessarily one
of the top priorities, I think, in, in those, in those Effort.
So the short answer is, I've given you a long answer now.
I'll give you the short answer is, I don't know, , I, I don't think so.
Travis Bader: Fair enough.
Um, what are your thoughts on auditory health slash medical benefits of
sound moderators slash suppressors?
Police use them is, is what the question was.
Mm-Hmm.
. Teri Bryant: Mm-Hmm.
, uh, well, from the very beginning I've been a, a strong believer that
we need to, uh, consider legalizing.
Uh, suppressors and not just for the reason that was stated, uh, if
you visit any area where there's a lot of old timers, many of them,
uh, started using firearms before, uh, hearing protection, a lot of
them have, have, uh, hearing issues.
And there are times when hearing issues are not easily dealt with by
earmuffs or, or things like that.
So there's, there's that issue.
Uh, the hearing health is certainly an important part.
But another part of this issue, I think, is preserving our ranges.
Because ranges that are close to cities increasingly are under pressure because
the city grows out to where the range was.
It was originally in an isolated area.
Nobody cared about the noise.
Now there are houses that are close by.
If people were using suppressors, the noise would be a much
less significant issue.
I think that probably we need to, Figure out what kind of a regulatory
framework would be around them.
Um, I, I probably wouldn't favor just removing all restrictions on them until
we at least studied whether that was going to be a good thing, but definitely
I think that They should play a role in firearms usage in, in the future in
Canada, they do in many other countries, including countries that have even more
restrictive firearms laws than we do.
Travis Bader: England is one of them.
I remember I was in Scotland.
I was walking from Inverness to the Loch Ness.
I want to check out.
Go for a swim in their, their cold lake over there.
And, uh, I saw this guy in his field and I was like, Hey, I recognize
what he's got set up over there.
It looks like a little covered shooting area.
And he was shooting.
I thought, Oh, I'll go chat with them.
And he had a suppressor on his rifle.
And so Canada, those are illegal.
He's like, really?
I can't shoot my rifle without it here.
Cause I live in X proximity to my neighbors and the
laws say I have to have it.
Interesting.
Um,
there's, there's one.
What are your thoughts on the utility of the AR 10 ESP, especially,
I guess, as a SIG 308 offering.
In wildlife conservation officer use, many Western Canadian provinces
switched to them beginning in 2018.
And I think this individual is probably looking at the, comparing
and contrasting, I'm going to go out on a limb here, uh, how, um, ARs
aren't, or apparently aren't suitable for, um, hunting or wildlife control.
Yet the, uh, Provinces are, are using them for, for wildlife control
within their government agencies.
Teri Bryant: Yeah.
Well, uh, so I guess the, on, on the broader point, I'm not always, uh,
I'll confess that I'm not always up on exactly the latest models or whatever
everything is, but on the basic point, um, you know, what really determines
how suitable a firearm is for a given purpose is primarily its caliber and
secondarily things like weight and length and, and that sort of thing.
And so.
Um, the idea that some bureaucrat in Ottawa is better able to decide what
is useful or suitable for, uh, someone in the field to use, uh, I find to be
a difficult proposition to support.
It's, uh, the people who are in the field know what they need and, um,
they should be allowed within reason.
To choose the tools that are going to most appropriately help them to do the job to
continue with our, with our, um, our, uh, little analogy that we were using before.
You know, uh, the last thing a mechanic needs is somebody reaching over his
shoulder and saying, Oh no, you, you really should be using the, the, you
know, the, the, uh, uh, closed end wrench, not the open ended wrench that
application, you know, uh, well, let the person who's doing the job, figure it out.
Yeah.
Travis Bader: Uh, here's one from a, um, a business, uh, just says clarified
legal status of guns, not listed in OIC.
But the FRTs changed after the fact, also guns that have no FRT, period.
For example, no legal document states that ATRS modern series, Daria Mark 12, and
the Maccabee defense are prohibited or a reason why, though the FRT got changed.
Teri Bryant: If I could answer questions like that, so I would, I mean, part
of it, the federal government has gone completely out of control on these issues.
And so, you know, it's one thing to pass a regulation that says, uh,
these specific things are prohibited.
You can agree with it, you can disagree with it, but at least you know what
they have said is okay and not okay.
But the way they have been willy nilly trying to expand Uh, the list of
prohibitions, I've heard, the latest number I've heard is that it's grown
from the original 1, 500 to 2, 000.
And it wouldn't surprise me if it's even more.
Um, it's not how you should be making law.
Um, and I'm not, neither a lawyer nor a judge, nor certainly not a Supreme
Court justice, and it may take that to, to, to, That's a definitive
answer to that question, but it's not how we should be making law.
Travis Bader: Mm hmm.
And we think one thing that became really clear was, uh, I think it was
Murray Smith during the, um, uh, during the legal challenge that came up.
I was asked to hope high on a few issues and had to sit in on the,
on the court proceedings, but, uh, he repeatedly kept saying, you
know, FRTs have no bearing in law.
They're not, it's something that, that's Uh, the firearms program makes
for a, so that they have a reference of things, but it is not designed
specifically to influence law, to classify that's done by politicians.
So that was something that he mentioned on a few different occasions.
Yeah.
Um,
what are your thoughts on ATCs as well as
I'm not sure quite, maybe I'll just stop it as what is your thoughts on ATCs
because wilderness carry of non restricted firearms is kind of a moot point.
Teri Bryant: Yeah, so, um, obviously, uh, so authorizations to carry, there's
sort of three broad areas, maybe four.
So, um, So there's one area is authorizations to carry for defensive
life, and those are exceptionally hard to get in Canada because
the legal bar is extremely high.
And very soon I probably will not have any control over that at all because
Bill C 21 centralizes that power with the Commissioner of Firearms.
And so, uh, as far as I have seen, they haven't come out with the procedures.
For that, um, but, uh, I think that was a disastrous decision because the
whole point of that in the current framework is that the, uh, the need
must be imminent, imminent risk to life.
Well, if the risk is imminent, that's just the answer has to be
imminent, not depend on going up a chain of authority, many levels high.
To the Commissioner of Firearms, and I don't know the background
really of the current commissioner of firearms, but one previous one of
course is well known for having said she knew nothing about the law right.
In this area.
Right.
So, uh, I, I don't see what the benefit is of introducing those
many levels of additional scrutiny to a process that was already very.
Um, the authorizations to carry for, um, for like, um, armored car
guards and people like that, that's a relatively routine and, uh, un,
uh, uncontroversial, uh, area.
Although I would mention, um, when we took over the previous federal office.
Had not done any of the renewals of those.
So we had about, we had to immediately launch.
They're all, they all come due at one time of year.
And if we had not launched a crash campaign to get them done in just a
matter of a couple of weeks, all the movement of cash in the province of
Alberta would have ground to a halt as with likely significant negative
effects on the province as a whole.
You know, when we're talking about economic importance of firearms,
there's a very good example.
And so we prioritize that practically above almost everything else in
order to not shut down the economy.
Um, so, uh, then there's the trappers.
That's a relatively uncontroversial thing too.
Um, and the wilderness carry.
is a bit, uh, broader.
Uh, you know, with the trappers generally, um, that's a people sort
of self identify, you know, they've taken a trapper course, they've got
a trap line and so on and so forth.
The one that poses some, um, more difficult challenges is the authorization
to carry, um, in, uh, sort of wilderness protection against, uh, uh, wildlife.
And, um, so The key thing about that is that it does have to be professional.
Okay.
Like it's occupational.
So it might be a better term.
Um, whether it should be or not, that's a question we could discuss, but there's
no doubt that right now the law says, You know, if you're just out hiking in
the wilderness, regardless of whether you spend 24 hours a day, seven days
a week in an area full of grizzly bears and cougars and wolverines and
I don't know, wolverines are nasty.
I don't know.
Did they ever had to actually attack people?
Um, they can.
Yeah.
I'm not, I'm, I, you know, I'm, I'm not as up on my, uh, wilderness
who's who, as you would be.
Sure.
Cause that's your, your area of expertise.
But, um, you know, Uh, doesn't matter how much time you spend there, if you're
not working there, it's not an option.
Yeah.
Okay.
Um, so, uh, you know, we, we have, that there are provinces where
there's virtually no need for them.
You know, like if you're in Prince Edward Island, I don't think there's any
grizzly bears in Prince Edward Island.
I'm not sure there's anything big enough to pose a threat to
people in Prince Edward Island.
But there's certainly much less than there is in Alberta, at least.
So, um, They may, I don't know whether they even have that category as something
that they do as part of their product line at the chief firearms office there.
But here it certainly is part of our product line because
we've got lots of grizzly bears.
We've got lots of cougars.
We've got lots of wolves.
We've got lots of other things that are, um, red in tooth and claw, uh,
that, um, uh, pose potential risks.
And, uh, so it is something that we issue on a, you know, uh, we have to follow
the federal guidelines on it, but we, uh, do issue them on a fairly regular basis.
And, uh, you know, one that people often don't think about, um, is, uh,
if you, for example, are a rancher in an area near the Rockies and there's
grizzly bears roaming around and you're out working on your fence, um.
A case might be made that you need, uh, uh, to have an ATC when you're
out there so that you come back.
Sure.
At the end of the day.
Sure.
Um, and.
You know, we've taken a relatively flexible position on these things.
It's not the wild west, not open season, just come in and say you want one.
But um, if you can make a reasonable case for it, then, um, it is
something that people need here.
There's a legitimate need for that here in Alberta.
Travis Bader: Yeah.
There's a checklist you guys have to go through that all fire and
officers has have to go through.
Teri Bryant: But what I would like to emphasize though, is that people
should be thinking of that as.
A last resort, you know, that, uh, number one should be, uh, being bear aware and,
uh, you know, making sure that you are, uh, not exposing yourself to undue risk.
Okay.
Uh, and, um, everyone that I have spoken to who actually works with bears,
like bear specialists, people whose whole job is bears say bear spray is
generally going to be more effective.
Because it's not as close a requirement for accuracy, but
as a backup, um, a firearm could be a useful thing in some cases.
Uh, I would like to see people have a high degree of proficiency if they're
in those, uh, if they're going to be using a firearm for a purpose like that.
Um, but.
No, like I said, it's a legitimate thing.
It's legally allowed and we do it.
Travis Bader: I remember years ago, there's a, a gun store in, in Surrey
and the police kept coming by that store because there's gangsters that
are coming in and kept warning them, I mean, Hey, these guys are violent,
there's going to be some problems and they're like, Well, maybe we should be
seeing if we should get an ATC here.
I mean, there's another store in BC where they were robbed and they,
I think it was a husband and wife.
They both got executed in there and they used that as an
example and, and a few others.
And the, they applied for ATCs for protection of their life based on what
was going around and the information they were getting from police.
Um, and, Provided them training.
They're highly proficient.
They met all of the protocol up into the point where the fire program
says, look, you've met everything that we're looking for, for the issuance.
We just need a letter from the chief of police in Surrey here saying that.
Um, their protection is not adequate.
They said, it can't come from a police officer.
It's gotta be the chief of police.
And they got to say that protection is not adequate for you.
And, and then we'll issue it to you.
Of course, there's no chief of police is going to turn around and
say that the protection that they have to offer is not adequate and
that's where it was finally stymied.
Um, have you heard of incidences where people actually are
successful in obtaining a ATC?
Like I've, I've heard hearsay.
I've, I've heard people tell me wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
Teri Bryant: Well, for defensive life, you mean?
Travis Bader: For defensive life.
Teri Bryant: Well, defensive life is such a rare category that I can't, for security
reasons, I can't tell you exactly what we've done, but like in all of Canada,
you're talking about a handful of people.
Travis Bader: Right.
Okay.
Teri Bryant: And so it's not something that comes up, I can't say in 50
percent of cases when you're talking about a handful of the country,
you know, so, um, but in any case, as I've indicated, it, it's kind
of a moot question for us because.
At any day, I'm expecting to have that power completely removed from me.
Um, and then it will be the commissioner of firearms.
And I suspect that whatever decision I would have made, the commissioner
of firearms might be even, might be considerably more reticent to
issue, uh, than I would have been.
Um, and you know, I understand the, the You know, like when I grew up, some of the
places we lived, it was quite a distance to a phone, let alone to a police station.
So I understand people have a variety of, of security needs and you know,
perhaps that would be something that a future government will revisit.
But certainly this one's not prone to reconsideration of such things.
Travis Bader: Is there anything that we haven't talked about
that we should be talking about?
Teri Bryant: Uh, well, we've covered quite a lot of ground here today, uh,
Travis, but, um, I guess, you know, you know, if I were closing things out, I
always just want to, uh, give people some reassurance that, uh, Uh, we might be
in somewhat dark times in the firearms community at the moment, given the
unfounded attacks that have been made on our community and many of the ill advised
measures that we've been subjected to.
But the firearms community is not without friends.
We do have friends in Ottawa.
We have friends.
Our provincial government is a very strong supporter of law abiding firearms owners.
I am working.
Every single day of all of my energy, uh, to try and make sure that the
firearms community has a bright future.
And as long as we are able to have a system where firearms ownership
is, uh, regulated in a fashion to ensure that it's consistent with
public safety, then, uh, I think that we will in the end be successful.
In convincing enough people in Ottawa to make the rules that we need and that
we here in the province of Alberta will be leading the way in showing the rest
of the country, how those laws can then be interpreted in a fashion that is
helpful to the firearms community and entirely consistent with public safety.
And, uh, then basically spreading the gospel across the country
as, uh, Alberta leads the way.
In this area, as in so many other aspects of government policy.
Travis Bader: Terry, it was an absolute pleasure having
you on the Silvercore podcast.
Thank you very much.
Teri Bryant: Thank you very much, Travis.
I very much enjoyed.
Uh, being here with you and sharing some of the exciting things that we're
doing here and Keep the faith folks.
We'll get through this period
You